URBANISATION OF FARM WORKERS
VOLUME 1:
Locality studies in Karoo livestock areas
Fauresmith
Jagersfontein
Philippolis
Colesberg
Daniel Pienaar
Carin van Schalkwyk
October 2003
Series editor:
Doreen Atkinson
Human Sciences Research Council
[email protected] (051) 773 0355 Table of Contents
PREFACE ...... 7
FAURIESMITH ...... 10
INTRODUCTION ...... 10 A. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMING AREA ...... 10
1. Type of farm ...... 10 2. Spatial Location ...... 10
B. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMERS...... 10 1 Age...... 10 2 Education ...... 10 3 Gender ...... 10 4 Married status...... 11 C GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARM WORKERS ...... 11
1 Age...... 11 2 Gender ...... 11 3 Education ...... 11 4 Married status...... 11 D. MOBILITY AND ROOTEDNESS...... 11 1 Length of residence ...... 11 2 Number of farm workers ...... 12 3 Family of workers...... 13 E. QUALITY OF LIFE: INFRASTRUCTURE AVAILABLE FOR FARM WORKERS...... 13 1. Housing ...... 13 2. Infrastructure ...... 13 3 Recreation ...... 14 F. TYPES AND LEVELS OF SERVICES AVAILABLE TO FARM WORKERS ...... 14
1 Awareness of services...... 14 2 Utilisation of services on the farms ...... 15 3 The role of the government...... 15 4 The role of non-state institutions...... 16 5 The role of farmers’ organisations ...... 16 6 The role of churches...... 16 G. RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS: PREFERENCES OF FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS .. 17
1 Current residential patterns ...... 17 H. RIGHTS...... 18
I. TRAVEL: TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS...... 18
1 Urban services...... 18 2 Transport facilities ...... 19
1 3 Commuting patterns ...... 19 J. FARM WORKERS LIVELIHOODS...... 19 1 Cultivation...... 19 2 Stock ownership ...... 19 3 Training ...... 20 4 Training providers...... 22
K. SUPPORT FOR EMERGING FARMERS...... 22
1 The ideal of farm ownership ...... 22 2. Support agencies...... 22 L. THE ‘FARMING COMMUNITY’...... 23
1 Developmental needs...... 23 2 Solidarity between farmers and farm workers...... 23 M. FORMER FARM WORKERS ...... 24
1 What kinds of people? ...... 24 2 Farming heritage ...... 25 3 Quality of life...... 25 4 Changing livelihoods...... 25 5 Skills base ...... 26 JAGERSFONTEIN ...... 27
INTRODUCTION ...... 27
A GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMING AREA ...... 27 1. Type of Farm ...... 27 2. Spatial Location ...... 27 B GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMERS...... 27 1. Age and number of years spent on farm...... 27 2. Education ...... 27 3. Gender ...... 27 C BACKGROUND OF FARM WORKERS...... 28 1. Age...... 28 2. Gender ...... 28 3. Literacy...... 28 4. Married status...... 28 D MOBILITY AND ROOTEDNESS: COMPARING FARMERS AND WORKERS...... 28
1. Length of residence ...... 28 2. Number of farm workers ...... 29 3. Number of family members on the farm...... 30 E QUALITY OF LIFE ...... 30
1. Housing ...... 30 2. Infrastructure ...... 30
2 3. Recreation ...... 31 F TYPES OF SERVICE DELIVERY TO FARM WORKERS...... 31 1. Awareness of available services...... 31 2. Utilisation of services on the farms ...... 32 3. The role of government...... 32 4. The role of non-state organisations ...... 33 5. Role of farmer’s organisations ...... 33 6. Role of churches...... 33 G RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS: PREFERENCES OF FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS .. 33
H RIGHTS...... 34 I TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS: HOW STRONG ARE LINKS BETWEEN FARM AND TOWN ...... 35 1. Urban services...... 35 2. Transport facilities ...... 35 3. Commuting patterns ...... 35 J FARM WORKER’S LIVELIHOODS: DOES THE FARM OFFER ANY OPTIONS?...... 35
1. Cultivation...... 35 2. Stock ownership ...... 35 3. Previous training...... 36 4. Training needs...... 36 5. Training providers...... 37 K SUPPORT TO EMERGING FARMERS ...... 37
L THE FARMING ‘COMMUNITY’: DOES IT EXIST? ...... 38
1. Developmental trends...... 38 2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers...... 38 M MAKING THE BREAK: FORMER FARM WORKERS...... 39
1. What kinds of people? ...... 39 2. Farming heritage ...... 39 3. Quality of life...... 39 4. Livelihood and skills...... 40 PHILIPPOLIS ...... 41 INTRODUCTION ...... 41
A. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMING AREA ...... 41
1. Type of farm ...... 41 2. Spatial location ...... 41 B. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMERS...... 42
1. Age...... 42 2. Literacy/education ...... 42 3. Gender ...... 42
3 C. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARM WORKERS ...... 42 1. Age...... 42 2. Gender ...... 43 3. Literacy...... 43 4. Married status...... 43 D. MOBILITY AND ROOTEDNESS: COMPARING FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS. 43
1. Length of residence ...... 43 2. Farm workers’ residence ...... 44 3. Farm workers’ family residence ...... 45 E. QUALITY OF LIFE: LEVELS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FARM WORKERS...... 45
1. Housing ...... 45 2. Infrastructure ...... 46 3. Recreation ...... 46
F. TYPES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY TO FARM WORKERS ...... 47
1. Awareness of available services...... 47 2. Utilisation of services on the farms ...... 47 3. The role of government...... 48 4. The role of non-state organisations ...... 49 5. The role of farmers’ organisations ...... 49 6. The role of churches...... 49
G. RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS: PREFERENCES OF FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS?49
1. Current residential patterns ...... 49 H. RIGHTS...... 52
I. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS: HOW STRONG ARE THE LINKS BETWEEN FARM AND TOWN?...... 52 1. Urban services...... 52 2. Transport services ...... 52 3. Commuting patterns ...... 52 J. FARM WORKERS’ LIVELIHOODS – DOES THE FARM OFFER ANY OPTIONS?...... 53 1. Cultivation...... 53 2. Stock ownership ...... 53 3. Previous training...... 54 4. Training needs...... 54 5. Training providers...... 56 K. SUPPORT TO EMERGENT FARMERS...... 57 1. The ideal of farm ownership ...... 57 L. THE “FARMING COMMUNITY” – A COMMUNITY ONLY IN NAME? ...... 58
1. Developmental needs...... 58 2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers...... 58 M. MAKING THE BREAK: THE FATE OF EX-FARM WORKERS ...... 59
4 1. What kinds of people? ...... 59 2. The farming heritage...... 59 3. Quality of life...... 60 4. Changing livelihoods...... 60 5. Skills base ...... 61 COLESBERG...... 62
INTRODUCTION ...... 62 A. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMING AREA...... 62 1. Type of farm ...... 62 2. Spatial location ...... 62 B. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARMERS...... 62 1. Age...... 62 2. Literacy/education ...... 62 3. Gender ...... 63 C. GENERAL BACKGROUND OF FARM WORKERS ...... 63 1. Age...... 63 2. Gender ...... 63 3. Literacy...... 63 4. Married status...... 63 D. MOBILITY AND ROOTEDNESS: COMPARING FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS.. 64
1. Length of residence ...... 64 2. Farm workers’ residence ...... 64 3. Farm workers’ family residence ...... 66 E. QUALITY OF LIFE: LEVELS OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR FARM WORKERS...... 66
1. Housing ...... 66 2. Infrastructure ...... 66 3. Recreation ...... 67 F. TYPES AND LEVELS OF SERVICE DELIVERY TO FARM WORKERS ...... 67 1. Awareness of available services...... 67 2. Utilisation of services on the farms ...... 68 3. The role of government...... 69 4. The role of non-state organisations ...... 70 5. The role of farmers’ organisations ...... 71 6. The role of churches...... 71 G. RESIDENTIAL OPTIONS: PREFERENCES OF FARMERS AND FARM WORKERS?71 1. Current residential patterns ...... 71 H. RIGHTS...... 74 I. TRAVEL AND TRANSPORT ARRANGEMENTS: HOW STRONG ARE THE LINKS BETWEEN FARM AND TOWN?...... 74 1. Urban services...... 74
5 2. Transport facilities ...... 75 3. Commuting patterns ...... 75 J. FARM WORKERS’ LIVELIHOODS – DOES THE FARM OFFER ANY OPTIONS? ...... 75
1. Cultivation...... 75 2. Stock ownership ...... 75 3. Previous training...... 77 4. Training needs...... 77 5. Training providers...... 79 K. SUPPORT TO EMERGENT FARMERS...... 80 1. The ideal of farm ownership ...... 80 L. THE “FARMING COMMUNITY” – A COMMUNITY ONLY IN NAME?...... 81 1. Developmental needs...... 81 2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers...... 81
M. MAKING THE BREAK: THE FATE OF EX-FARM WORKERS (ALL FROM EX-FARM WORKERS QUESTIONNAIRE) ...... 83 1. What kinds of people? ...... 83 2. The farming heritage...... 84 3. Quality of life...... 84 4. Changing livelihoods...... 85 5. Skills base ...... 86
6 PREFACE
Farm workers are one of the most marginalised categories of South African society. They are isolated by distance and poor transport facilities, far from social services, and often poorly educated. The spatial distribution of farm workers is typically very sparse. According to 1993 census data, only 2.2% of farms (i.e. 1 273 farms) employ more than 100 workers (regular, casual and seasonal), from a total of 57 980 farms.1
Farm workers’ relationships with their employers are complex, revealing a combination of power dynamics, paternalism, and mutual loyalty, intensified by their isolation from urban society. On most farms, in particular the extensive farming areas, the relationship between farmer and farm worker is curiously intimate and interdependent. This is partly due to their close spatial proximity, in the context of widely dispersed farms. It is also due to inherited paternalistic bonds, in terms of which farmers and farm workers provide each other with certain kinds of unremunerated services. A farmer may well provide his workers with free housing, medical care, transport, clothing, education and other perks. In return, a farm worker may provide extra work at peak times of the year.
The living and work circumstances of farm workers in South Africa is still a highly understudied field, although the agricultural sector remains an important source of employment opportunities. Basic trends in the living conditions of farm workers have been identified and investigated but especially in remote areas such as the Northern Cape, these are still very vague. Therefore additional research on farm worker conditions in this area is highly necessary.
There is general agreement that there has been a constant decrease in employment within the agricultural sector over the last decade, with a 10% fall in employment since 1989. Large decreases of farm workers have been indicated by the October Household Survey. However, there is some disagreement about the actual number of farm workers, partly because census and other data tends to be incomplete2:
1 Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, “Farms employing more than 1000 workers”, Hansard (Interpellations, Questions and Replies of the National Assembly), 13 August 1998, col. 2634. 2 However, the following caveats should be noted: 1. The OHS combines agriculture, hunting, forestry and fisheries as a whole 2. The OHS is based on a relatively small sample of households. Questions in the survey do not relate directly to employment in the farming sector, and it is doubtful whether statistics relating to seasonal and temporary workers are adequately captured 3. The 1997 results are not strictly comparable because the official definition of employment has changed, and sampling methods and weighing of data have been adjusted against new population figures 4. The statistics themselves show a marked increase in the “not defined” category, from 111 000 workers in 1994 to 899 000 workers in 1997. As other sectors remain fairly consistent with overall trends, there appears to be a switch from agriculture, to “not defined” 5. Based on Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, “Decrease in agricultural/hunting/forestry/fishery sectors: Statistics”, in Hansard (Interpellations, Questions and Replies of the National Assembly), 16 September 1998, col. 3087.
7 Table 1: Different data sources for information on farm workers
Date and source Number of farm workers 1993 :Central Statistical Service: Agricultural Just under 1.1 million survey 1996: Agricultural survey 914 473, of which about 67% (617 476( were employed on a regular basis, while 33% (303 997) were employed as casual or seasonal workers.3 1996: October Household Survey Estimate of 606 000 1999: Opposition spokesman Decrease from 1.07 million in 1993 to 850 000 in 1996.4 2000: Ministerial information 1.2 million.5 2000: Ministerial information Decrease of the labour force from 1.2 million in 1994 to 650 000 in 2000 6. Eskom/Markinor Estimate of 900 000
As an illustration of the national trend, the number of farm workers in the Free State decreased by 963 during the five-year period from 1988 to 1993.7
There are several reasons for the decreasing numbers of farm workers. Firstly, with the trade liberalisation, agriculture became a market-driven sector, which required lower labour prices in order to remain competitive. This, in turn, meant laying off labour. Secondly, the general economic downturn since the early 1990’s has contributed to job losses. Thirdly, many farm workers chose to leave the farms to which they had been bound during the Apartheid era. Finally the increasingly complex legislation surrounding farm workers acts as a disincentive for farmers to employ permanent labour.8 There is a long-term trend towards labour-saving technologies, as well as a trend towards using short-term contract labour for particular periods of the year.9
Since 2002, the HSRC has conducted extensive research on the living conditions of farm workers in the Free State and Northern Cape. This included an investigation of municipalities’ understanding of their new roles in rural service delivery, particularly after the new demarcation of municipalities in 2000.
3 Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, Hansard (Questions and Replies of the NCOP), November 2000, col. 550. 4 Dr E.A. Schoeman (MP), “Investigating minimum wages/conditions for farm workers: Progress”, Hansard, (Interpellations, Questions and Replies of the National Assembly), 20 October 1999, col. 1086. 5 Minister of Water Affairs and Forestry, Hansard (Interpellations and Questions of National Assembly), 5 August 1998, co. 2453. 6 Debates of the National Assembly (2000) ‘Appropriation Bill’, 14-16 March 2000: 1769. 7 Minister for Agriculture and Land Affairs, “Free State: Increase/decrease in farm workers”, Hansard (Interpellations, Questions and Replies of the National Assembly), 17 September 1997, col. 2702. Figures are drawn from the Agricultural Censuses. The number declined from 162 962 in 1988 to 161 999 in 1993. 8 Centre for Policy Studies (1999) ‘The march of progress?: job losses in agriculture’, downloaded on 06/01/2002,
8 During this research process, it became evident that we simply do not understand the process of rapid urbanisation of farm workers. Why do workers move to town? Do they wish to live in town, or on the farms? Where do their employers prefer them to live? The answers to these questions will decisively impact upon service delivery patterns in future, for if these spatial dynamics are not understood, it is likely that government programmes will not achieve their desired goals.
In this volume, the research results of five locality studies are presented. Ultimately, three volumes will be produced: 1. Urbanisation in extensive Karoo farming areas (Jagersfontein, Fauresmith, Philippolis, Colesberg) 2. Urbanisation in intensive irrigation farming areas (Ritchie, Hopetown, Luckhoff) 3. Urbanisation in the Eastern Free State (Ladybrand).
It has become evident that rural livelihoods are very complex. There is a great need to focus on rural-urban mixed livelihoods, and to provide all sectors of rural communities with a variety of residential and livelihoods options. This should include town-farm transport systems, urban housing for farm workers, access to municipal commonage, small-holdings and small farms for emergent farmers or ex-farm workers, share equity schemes, and the professionalisation of agricultural labour.
A multi-sectoral strategy is urgently needed, to re-think the ways in which small towns function in relation to their rural hinterlands. By means of this volume of case studies, the HSRC hopes to make a contribution to this endeavour.
9 Fauriesmith
Introduction
Interviews were held with five farmers who farm in the Fauresmith area and with a worker from each of the farms. The interviews were conducted with a view to accommodating gender representivity. Three of the farmers interviewed were male and two of workers interviewed were female. Amongst the criteria that were used to identify the farmers was their willingness to participate in the research project as well as the inclusion of a variety of farms and farming situations. The farmers and workers were interviewed separately and by different researchers. Both parties were assured that their views would remain confidential. Thereafter, the same researchers interviewed two former farm workers (one male and one female).
A. General Background of farming area
1. Type of farm
The farmers tend to farm with sheep and cattle. This type of farming is labour intensive.
2. Spatial Location
Fauresmith is located in the south western Free State and was named after Reverent Philip Faures of the Dutch Reformed Church in what was then the Cape Colony and the Governor of that area between the years 1847 and 1852, Sir Harry Smith. The farms visited were between 10km and 48km away from the town.
B. General background of farmers
1 Age
The average age of the farmers interviewed varied between the early thirties’ and forties. The youngest farmer interviewed was 28, the two oldest two farmers were both 42 years of age.
2 Education
Two of the five farmers interviewed had qualifications from tertiary institutions, and the rest had matric (grade 12).
3 Gender
Five men and one woman were interviewed.
10 4 Married status
Four of the five farmers interviewed were married.
C General background of farm workers
1 Age
Farmer workers tended to a bit younger than the farmers. Three of the five were between the ages of 22 and 31, the oldest two workers were 42 and 41 respectively.
2 Gender
Two women and three men were interviewed.
3 Education
Farm workers were all literate and all had some form of schooling. Two had standard six (grade 8), one standard five, one standard four and one standard three (grades seven, six, and five).
4 Married status
Three of the workers were living with their partners and two were married.
The table below show the size of the families of the workers interviewed.
Table 1: Size of families of farm workers
Farm worker Size of family Worker 1 3 Worker 2 2 Worker 3 4 Worker 4 3 Worker 5 3
D. Mobility and rootedness
1 Length of residence
Farmers have spent between 18 and 22 years in the district and between five and 18 years on their particular farms.
As the table below will show, farm worker have generally not been on the farms where they were interviewed for very long.
11 Table 2: Length of residence on the farm
Farm Farmer Worker Farm 1 7 3 Farm 2 18 1 and half Farm 3 17 2 weeks Farm 4 11 1 Farm 5 5 2
The table above shows that the farmers had been on the farms where the interviews were conducted for a longer period of time than the workers. However, three workers had spent about 20 years working in the district, and the remaining two about two years. This indicated that there is quite a high turnover of labour on farms in the district.
2 Number of farm workers
The table below show the change in the number of workers between 2001 and 2003 according to the farmers interviewed.
Table 3: Farm workers employed on the farms, 2001 – 2003
2001 2003 Farmer 1 9 9 Farmer 2 3 6 Farmer 3 9 7 Farmer 4 10 10 Farmer 5 20 24
The table above shows the number of workers had in most cases either increased or remained constant, only in one instance had the number actually declined. This could be in part because the area had suffered a draught a few years earlier, with consequence that many farmers had reduced the number of workers the minimum needed. From 2001 to 2003, the number of workers increased slightly from 51 to 56.
The table below show the place of residence (either the farm or town) of the families of farm workers, who according to those interviewed.
Table 4: Number of farm workers with families on the farm and in town
Number of workers with Number of workers with Farm families on the farm families in town Farm 1 6 0 Farm 2 6 0 Farm 3 4 0 Farm 4 8 4 Farm 5 8 0 Total 32 4
12 The table above clearly shows that in the majority of cases (32), the families of workers live with them on the farm. Only four workers had families that lived in town.
3 Family of workers.
The table below show the number of women and children living on the farms (according to the farmers) under review.
Table 5: Number of women and children on the farms
Number of Pre-school Primary school High school Farm women children children children Farm 1 6 5 7 - Farm 2 5 2 7 - Farm 3 4 5 1 1 Farm 4 12 - - - Farm 5 15 4 2 - Total 42 16 17 1
The table above show that there are 42 women living on the five farms, along with 16 pre-school children, 17 primary school children and one learner in high school.
E. Quality of life: Infrastructure available for farm workers
1. Housing
Four of the five workers interviewed lived in stone houses. One lived in a temporary structure, however, he did indicate that he had access to a stone house, but that he found the structure ‘too big’ for him.
2. Infrastructure
The table below show the infrastructural services available to the workers interviewed.
Table 6: Infrastructure for farm workers
Farm Water Toilets Energy Phone Farm 1 In-house Flush Wood Cellular phone Electricity Farm 2 Tap in garden None Electricity In-house Wood Farm 3 Communal tap Pit Wood Farmer Electricity Farm 4 Communal None Oil lamp Public water source in Wood telephone farm yard Paraffin Farm 5 In-house None Wood - Electricity None mentioned
13 All workers interviewed have access to water, three of the five indicated that they do not have access to a toilet. Electricity is mostly used for lighting and wood for cooking, only two workers said that they used electricity for cooking. One worker noted the need for a electrical stove and another would like to own his own home.
3 Recreation
Four of the five workers reported having access to a soccer field.
Three of the five indicated that that they had access to radio and televisions. One of these stated that he would like his own radio and television set, as opposed to having access to it. The remaining two had access to radios only, of these one said that she would like her own radio and television set.
The impression was that workers did not have much to do in the way of recreation. Workers also display strong desire to own the means to recreation as opposed to having access to it.
F. Types and levels of services available to farm workers
1 Awareness of services
• Clinics: All farmers and workers were aware of clinics and the availability of clinics and primary health. A mobile clinic also visits the farms. • Ambulances: With the exception of one worker, all farmers and workers were aware that ambulances service the farms. • Social services: Two farmers did not know where social services could be obtained. A worrying indicator was that four of the five workers were not familiar with the concept of grants, let alone where such grants could be obtained. • Pensions and grants: One farmer did not know where a child maintenance grant could be obtained and another claimed not to have heard any of the grants available. The remaining three farmers knew where all of the grants concerned could be obtained. By contrast, one farm worker knew of all the grants but did not know where it could be obtained. The remaining two knew of all the grants and where it could be obtained. • Education: With the exception of one farmer, the farmers and farm workers knew where the nearest school was located. One of few remaining farm schools in the country, Parys, is located in this area and a number of children attend that institution as opposed to a school in town. • Adult education: None of the farmers or farm workers knew where adult education could be obtained. • Department of Labour: With the exception of one farmer, all the farmers knew about the Department of Labour and where its services could be obtained. Only
14 one worker knew where the department was located, four knew about the department but not where it was located. One worker did not know about the department at all. • Police: The services of the police are available on the farms and in the town and widely known.
2 Utilisation of services on the farms
The table below show which services are available on the farms.
Table 7 : Awareness of services on the farms
Farm Farmer Farm worker Farm 1 Ambulance Primary health Transport by farmer Transport by farmer Taxi Taxi Church Church Police Police Farm 2 Primary health Primary health Ambulance Ambulance Transport by farmer Transport by the farmer Information regarding labour matters Department of Labour School (Parys) Police School (Parys) Farm 3 Primary health Primary health Ambulance Transport by farmer Transport by farmer Church Taxi Police Church School (Parys) Farm 4 Primary Health Primary health Ambulance Ambulance Transport by farmer Transport by farmer Taxi Church Police Farm 5 Ambulance Primary health Social services Ambulance Transport by farmer Transport Taxi Taxi Church Church Police
It is noteworthy that neither Department of Labour nor information regarding labour affairs seem to be established services in this area. The workers attend church but it is unclear whether these churches are part of any established denominations.
3 The role of the government
Farmers indicated that they did not mind government officials visiting the farms, as long as they made appointments. One stated that they were welcome as long as they did not ‘stir like the trade unions’. One farmer thought that the government ‘was doing enough already’ and that farmers themselves had to make a contribution in service delivery.
15 Farmers suggested that the government could offer the following services: • Improved medical services. • Literacy services. • HIV/AIDS and hygiene education. • Project management and skills training (needlework). • Transport for children to go to school.
4 The role of non-state institutions
None of the farmers have had any experience of non-state organisations in service delivery for farm workers. One thought that such organisations had a role to play in basic skills training such as sheep shearing. Another understood such organisations to mean churches.
5 The role of farmers’ organisations
All farmers felt that farmers’ organisations had a role to play in the training of workers. The farmers mentioned that such organisations could become involved in the following areas: • Skills training (sheep shearing). • Improved medical conditions. • An ‘arbitration role’ between farmers and workers. • Training to improve farming practices on communal land. • Training workers in safety measures for use in case of a possible farm attack.
6 The role of churches
One farmer thought that the church had no role to play in service delivery for farm workers. Farmers tend to view the role of the church cast the role of the church in moral terms. It was mentioned that established churches should visit the farms more often, and organise more prayer meetings. One farmer suggested that a central point should be identified in town or on a farm where workers could gather to worship. An independent church in the area (the ‘bekeerkerk’ or ‘conversion church’), attracted a lot of comment. Some farmers welcomed its presence as it emphases that its members reject vices such as alcohol and tobacco. Others are worried that it is gaining in popularity to the detriment of established churches. The fact that some farmers are highly impressed by this body’s success in curbing drinking amongst farm workers is indicative of the social conditions prevailing on such farms and the means of recreation available to farm workers. Not much is known about the conversion church, its doctrine or its membership.
16 G. Residential options: Preferences of farmers and farm workers
1 Current residential patterns
The table below show farmers prefer their workers to live, as well as the workers’ choice of residence.
Table 8: Residential preferences
Farmers’ Worker’s Farm Reasons Reasons preference preference Farm 1 Farm Works with cattle. More Farm Free food convenient to have Free water workers living on the Free electricity farm. Free housing Agreeable working hours However, the farm is too far from town, finds it difficult to access services such as clinics. Is also separated from his family and does not own a house. Farm 2 Farm More economical to have Farm Free housing workers live on farm, as Close to work transport would cost too Agreeable working hours. much. There are also However, finds it difficult to ‘strange’ influences in access services such as the town. schools or clinics. Farm 3 Farm Too far from town to Town Separated from family and make commuting also has to pay for water. (picking workers up) However, does have free economical. electricity and housing on the farm. Farm 4 Farm Same as above, lowers Farm Only advantage is that it is transport costs. close to work. No disadvantages mentioned. Farm 5 Farm Wants to keep ‘central Town Separated from family. element’ of workers Finds it difficult to access familiar with the farm. services like clinics and Does not like ‘strange schools. Also sees not elements’. owning a home as disadvantage on the farm. Wants to live in town in spite of the following advantages to farm: Free water Free electricity Free Housing
The table above shows that farm workers and farmers are largely in agreement concerning residential options in all but two cases. In those two cases the workers preferred to live in town while the farmer would have them live on the farm.
17 Interviewees were generally aware of the of the favourable and negative aspects of their current place of residence, in only one case did the worker not comment on any unfavourable points about living on the farm.
A powerful incentive for living on the farm seemed to be the range of free services on offer, while many respondents mentioned that, as workers, they struggled to gain access to services offered in urban areas.
The following were reasons offered by workers for living on the farm: • Free water. • Free electricity. • Free housing. • Close to place of work. • Agreeable working hours.
The range of free goods and services suggest that farmers do not regard their relationship with the workers as a pure economic one. There seems to be a powerful element of patronage present in the interaction between farmers and their workers.
Workers mentioned the following disadvantages to living on the farm: • Separation from family. • Difficulty is accessing services offered in town. • Does not own a house.
All the farmers interviewed preferred the workers to stay on the farms. The following reasons were suggested: • Labour is nearby when needed. • Reduced transport costs. • Dislikes or mistrusts ‘strange’ or ‘foreign’ influences in town.
H. Rights
Three of the farmers did not have a problem with workers having their own cemetery. Two objected, of one whom stated that it would result in two many people having access to the farm.
I. Travel: Travel and transport arrangements
1 Urban services
Workers mentioned the following reasons for visiting town: • Church attendance. • Business matters.
18 • Visiting social worker. • Collecting pensions or grants. • To go to court. • Visiting family. • Visiting doctor and clinic. • Church attendance. • To attend meetings.
2 Transport facilities
The table below show what kind of transport facilities is available to workers.
Table 9: Transport services of farm workers
Type of facility Number of workers using this facility Own car 1 Travel with farmer 5 Taxi 1 Walking - Bicycle 1 Horse/donkey -
The table above shows that most workers travel with the farmer should they require transport.
3 Commuting patterns
Two workers visit the town once every quarter, another two visit once a month. The last worker had her own vehicle and visited the town at will.
J. Farm workers livelihoods
1 Cultivation
Three of the five workers interviewed indicated that they were allowed to cultivate their own vegetable gardens on the farms.
2 Stock ownership
The issue of stock ownership is an important indicator as to how the farmer regards the relationship with the worker. Stock ownership reveals a situation where the worker has certain rights of production on the farm in contrast to a purely economic one where the worker sells his or her labour for wages.
19 The table below shows the farmers views on stock ownership, it should be noted that all farmers preferred the workers to stay on the farm. The table also includes the workers choice of residence:
Table 10: Stock ownership and choice of residence
Farmer’s views Farm workers Farm on stock Reasons choice of ownership residence Has entered into partnership with Farm 1 Yes workers. No limit on number. Workers Farm run sheep shearing concern. Some workers have ‘a sheep or two’. Legislation has taken toll on ‘humane’ Farm 2 No relationship. Issue of grazing rights Farm places stress on relationship between farmer and worker. Will cause problems. Workers started to fight amongst themselves over Farm 3 No Town ownership of cattle when allowed in the past. Finds legislation on the subject a Farm 4 No Farm burden. Farm 5 Yes Found that it prevents stock theft. Town
The table above indicates that there is some correlation between the workers’ desire to move to town and the fact that they are not allowed to keep stock. However, in the last case, the workers are allowed to keep stock, yet the worker interviewed still wanted to move to town. This could suggest that the allure of urban life and services is stronger than whatever incentives life on the farm may offer.
It should be noted that in the first case, the farmer entered into a full partnership with the worker. They are now equals in the farming enterprise and some of the workers now run a sheep shearing concern.
3 Training
The table below show what types of training farm workers received in the past:
Table 11: Training experience and preferences
Number who have received Number who would like to Subject training receive training Welding 1 1 Animal diseases 4 - Farm management 1 1 Driver’s license 1 2 Repair of farm equipment 2 1 and vehicles Literacy - - Cooking 2
20 The table above reveals a general low level of training among the workers interviewed. It is also noticeable that there does not seem to be a huge demand for training emanating from the workers interviewed. This situation also belies the opinion of farmers when asked about what type of training farm workers should receive, as will be shown next. The table below show the training preferred by the farmers and farm workers.
Table 12: Training preferred by farmers and workers
Farm Training preferred by farmer Training preferred by worker Farm 1 HIV/AIDS prevention Farm management Farm skills such as maintaining Cooking windmills and fences Farm management Farm 2 Literacy None Welding Driving Farm 3 Mechanical courses Cooking Sheep shearing Farm 4 None Welding Farm management Driver’s license Farm5 Sheep shearing Driver’ license Maintenance of farm equipment Repair and maintenance of farm Basic agricultural skills equipment Tractor driving
There is an obvious desire from the side of farmers for a more skilled and sophisticated work force. The various skills listed above, all include some form familiarity with machinery. There is clear that there is glaring contrast between the skills that farmers would like their workers to have and those possessed by the workers. The exception was the third farmer, who was of the opinion that ‘no training will benefit them’ (the farm workers). His opinion was not shared by the worker interviewed on the same farm. This type of notion was not to be found amongst other farmers. Furthermore, the farmer and worker the first farm have formed a partnership and are now farming together as single unit.
It is clear is that there are very little opportunities for further training on offer in this area. However, it is unclear why the services offered by the Department of Labour in this regard, is unknown.
One of the farms visited is home to one of the few remaining farm schools, and is run by the farmer’s wife. The interviewee made a thought provoking comment to the effect that farm workers used to be trained in basic farm skills while growing up on the farm; however, legislation pertaining to child labour now made this type of training impossible for farmers. The legislation referred to is presumably the Basic Conditions of Employment Act (no 75 of 1997). The Act regulates the employment of children older than 15 years. Penalties for those found contravening the act vary from a fine to up to three years’ imprisonment. The interviewee went on to state that upon finishing their schooling, people who want to be employed as farm workers no longer possess the level of skills possessed by an earlier generation.
21 4 Training providers
The table below indicates what institutions farmers and farm workers think should provide training.
Table 13: Views about training providers
Farm Farmer Farm worker Farm 1 Farmers Farmer Department of Labour Farmer’s wife Farm 2 Government Farmer Farmer Farm 3 Farmer Farmer’s wife Farmer’s associations Farm 4 No training needed in opinion of Farmer farmer Farm 5 Government Farmer
In keeping with earlier observations about the apparent absence of training facilities, it is notable that both farmers and farm workers thought that the burden of training should fall on the farmer. Also of interest is that just one farmer could think of the Department of Labour as the responsible government department to undertake such training. The impression is a desperate need for training exists, but that there is no knowledge of where such training could be obtained.
K. Support for emerging farmers
1 The ideal of farm ownership
Three of the farm workers interviewed would like to own their own farms. However, they have been obstructed from trying to acquire a farm by a lack of capital and experience. One worker claims to have tried to approach a government institution but went on to indicate that the process had come to a standstill. Another worker does not want a farm at all, while the last is being assisted by the farmer to acquire a farm.
2. Support agencies
The table below show the agencies farmers suggested should assist emerging farmers.
Table 14: Support agencies for emergent farmers
Farmer Agency Neighbouring farmers Farmer 1 State subsidy Free State Agricultural Union Farmer 2 Farmers Farmer 3 Farmers Farmer 4 No one Farmer 5 Farmers
22 With the exception of one farmer, all the other interviewees stated that farmers should help emerging farmers. This indicated a general willingness on the side of farmers to help. It is again noticeable that not a single reference was made to a specific government department.
L. The ‘farming community’
1 Developmental needs
When asked about their economic and social problems, one worker indicated that his salary was insufficient, another stated that the nearest school was too far away. One worker also said that he would like to own his own house.
Four out of the five farmers interviewed suggested that the general health of their workers had radically declined over the past three of years. All attributed this decline to the spread of HIV/AIDS. The decline was apparent enough for some farmers to see it in the general productivity and physical strength of the workers. One indicated that there was still a social stigma attached to the disease amongst farm workers, while another expressed the desire for an organised campaign that would educate workers as to what the disease entails.
2 Solidarity between farmers and farm workers
Of the five workers interviewed, three suggested that they would turn to the farmer for help when faced with an urgent need or requirement. Two stated that they would rather approach their parents. No worker mentioned any form of government institution (either national department or the municipality) that they would approach in times of need.
The farmers interviewed in this area showed wide differences in their approach to the relationship with their workers. Thee farmers thought that is would be possible to describe themselves and their workers as one community. Of these, one commented that ‘we are not on the same level yet’, but thought the idea of a community desirable. Another opined that that he would prefer it if the social distinction between worker and employer would fade away. The third farmer had already formed a partnership with one of his workers and the farm was under joint ownership at the time of writing. The farmer was also busy assisting the worker to acquire a farm of his own nearby.
On the other hand, two other farmers were of the opinion that the farming relationship should be characterised as labour relationship between worker and employer. According to one farmer the relationship should rather be characterised by mutual respect with both sides understanding of their respective rights and obligations.
23 However, all farmers believed that the farmer’s wife had a role to play in delivering services to workers in number of ways. This included cooking and house keeping classes, as well as literacy training. It has already been mentioned that one of the farms houses a farm school that is managed by the farmer’s wife.
The table below will show the farmer’s opinion on the relationship and stock keeping along with the worker’s residential preference.
Table 15: Views regarding social relations, stock keeping and residential preferences
Farmer’s views of Farmer’s view on stock Farmer worker’s Farm relationship keeping residential preference Farm 1 Community Yes Farm Farm 2 Labour relationship No Farm Farm 3 Labour relationship No Town Farm 4 Labour relationship No Farm Farm 5 Community Yes Town
It is notable that the table above show a clear correlation between the farmer’s views on stock ownership and whether the farmers and workers could be considered a community. However, no such correlation is evident in the farm worker’s residential choices. In the case of the second farm, the worker prefers to live on the farm despite not being allowed to keep cattle, while in the case of the fifth, the worker would prefer to live in town.
There seems to be no clear-cut trend in this district as to how farmers approach their workers. On the face of the evidence presented one can only deduce that it varies from farm to farm and very much depends on the character and views of the farmers in question.
M. Former farm workers
1 What kinds of people?
Two former farm workers, one male and one female, were interviewed.
The workers were both between the ages of 30 and 40.
One worker was married according to customary law and had a family of 3 pre-school children. The other was legally married (in Roman Dutch law) and had a family consisting of 4 children of school going age one past that age.
The male worker had attended primary school while the female was illiterate.
24 2 Farming heritage
The workers had lengthy experience of farm work. One had spent 14 years working on a farm, and had left it two months earlier and the other had worked for 28 before leaving it almost a year ago.
They cited the following reasons for leaving the farm: • Dismissed after a dispute with the farmer. • Dismissed after being unable to work after accident on the farm.
3 Quality of life
One worker lived in an informal structure while the other owned a brick house. While working on the farm, both lived in brick houses.
The worker who lived in a brick house had a flush toilet, compared to a pit on the farm. The house also had running water indoors and a communal tap. Fire was used to for heating and a paraffin stove for cooking. The situation was the same on the farm, with the exception that electricity was used for lighting.
In the case of the second worker, a tap in the garden was used a water source, while fire was used for cooking and heating. Oil lamps were used for lighting. Apparently the same sources were used for the same ends on the farm.
One worker did not a have access to a telephone on the farm whereas he had a phone inside his home on the farm. The second worker has access to a public telephone in town and had access to the farmer’s phone on the farm.
One worker used a taxi to commute in town while the other used a donkey.
One worker listed the following advantages of living in town: • Owns own house. • Access to services such as clinic, school, church etc. • Can attend social gatherings and events.
The second worker listed no advantages and was clearly embittered at being disabled and living in town.
4 Changing livelihoods
One interviewee is disabled and would not like to work on a farm again. He stated his disability as a reason indicated that he blamed the farmer for his current condition.
25 The second interviewee would like to work on farm again and listed more food and a stable job as reasons. It was mentioned that the town does not offer any prospects for employment.
5 Skills base
The table below show the types of training that the two interviewees received while working as farm workers.
Table 16: Previous training of ex-farm workers
Training Former worker 1 Former worker 2 Welding Yes Yes Animal diseases Yes Yes Farm management Yes Yes Farming methods - - Driver’s license - - Repair and maintenance of farm equipment - Yes Literacy - Sheep shearing Yes Yes Construction and wood work - -
Both interviewees mentioned that the farmer provided the training described above. Both wanted no further training in any of the areas listed above. Both workers are highly trained by farm worker standards. It is also clear that the town offered no recourse for people with their particular skills.
It should also be noted that the worker who is now disabled following an accident on the farm did not know what institutions to approach after he was dismissed as a result of the accident. Although it is difficult to speculate, this correlates with findings among the farm workers still employed that the services of the Department of Labour is not well known in this area.
26 Jagersfontein
Introduction
Interviews were held with three farmers who farm in the Jagersfontein area and with a worker from each of the farms. Amongst the criteria that were used to identify the farmers was their willingness to participate in the research project as well as the inclusion of a variety of farms and farming situations. The farmers and workers were interviewed separately and by different researchers. Both parties were assured that their views would remain confidential. Thereafter, the same researchers interviewed one former farm worker
A General background of farming area
1. Type of Farm
Farmers in this area tend farm with sheep as well as cattle
2. Spatial Location
Jagersfontein is in the south western Free State, about 110 kilometres from Bloemfontein.
B General background of farmers
1. Age and number of years spent on farm
Three interviews were conducted. The farmers were aged 35, 28 and 63.
One respondent had farmed in the area in the late 1950’s and had only recently returned after retiring.
2. Education
Of the interviewees, one had a diploma in engineering, the other an N3 technical diploma and the last, matric (grade 12).
3. Gender
The three interviewees were all males.
27 C Background of farm workers
1. Age
The ages of three farm workers interviewed were roughly the same as those the farmers. The workers were aged 31, 45 and 39.
2. Gender
All the workers were male.
3. Literacy
Two of the three workers interviewed achieved standard five (grade 7) at school while the third had no education whatsoever.
4. Married status
Two of the workers interviewed were legally married while one indicated that he was living with a partner. The size of their families are shown in the table below:
Table 1: Size of families of farm workers
Farm worker Size of family Respondent one 6 Respondent two 2 Respondent three 5
D Mobility and rootedness: Comparing farmers and workers
1. Length of residence
The table below shows the length of time each farmer had spent on the farm in which the interview was conducted.
Table 2: Length of residence of farmer on the farm
Farmer Length of residence Respondent one 2 year Respondent two 1 year Respondent three 2 years
The next table shows the same information for farm workers.
28 Table 3: Length of residence of farmer on the farm
Farm workers Length of residence Respondent one 16 year Respondent two 1 year Respondent three 30 years
These tables indicate that farm workers had on average spent far more time on the farms than the farmers had. However, it should be taken into account that the younger two farmers have recently taken possession of family farms and had spent additional time away from the farms in order to earn their qualifications. The third farmer interviewed had spent a little less than a decade farming in the district in between the 1950’s and 1960’s, and had recently returned. Moreover, two workers had spent their entire lives on the farms visited, while the second worker had worked on other farms in the district for all his adult life.
Table 4: Number of years farmer and worker has spent in the district
Farmer Number of years Worker Number of years Farmer 1 28 Worker 1 ‘entire life’ (age:37) Farmer 2 1 Worker 2 162 Farmer 3 63 Worker 3 ‘entire life’ (age: 45)
2. Number of farm workers
According to the farmers interviewed, the number of farm workers on their farms between 2001 and 2003 were as follows:
Table 5: Farm workers employed on the farms, 2001 – 2003
2001 2003 Respondent one 5 5 Respondent two 12 10 Respondent three 3 3 Total 20 18
The table above shows that there has been a slight decline in the number of farm workers employed between 2001 and 2003.
None of the farm workers interviewed lived in town. However, a number had family members that did. A number of workers spent the weekends in town with their families, but lived on the farm during week. The table below show the number of farm workers who had family members that lived in town.
29 Table 6: Number of farm workers with families on the farm and in town
Farm workers with families Farm workers with families Farm worker living on the farm living in town Farm worker one 6 0 Farm worker two 2 6 Farm worker three 2 1 Total 10 7
The table above shows that out if a total of 17 workers, 7 had family members that stayed in town. This suggests that there is a tendency for the workers to live on the farm, while their families live in town.
3. Number of family members on the farm
The table below shows the type and number of dependents on farm workers living on the farms according the farmers interviewed.
Table 7: Number of women and children on the farms
Farm inhabited by Number of Pre-school Primary school High school Farm worker women children children children Farmer one 5 4 3 0 Farmer two 6 2 6 0 Farmer three 3 1 0 0 Total 14 7 9 0
According to information obtained, 14 women reside on the three farms along with 7 pre-school children and 9 primary school children.
E Quality of life
1. Housing
All the workers live in brick houses.
2. Infrastructure
The table below shows the type of infrastructure facilities available to farm workers according to the farmers interviewed.
Table 8: Infrastructure for farm workers
Water Toilets Energy Phone Farmer one In-house Vip/flush Electricity/ wood Farmer Farmer two In-house Flush/pit Wood/ oil lamp Farmer/cellphone/public telephone on site Farmer three In-house/outside tap Flush/ pit Wood/battery Farmer/cellphone
30 In one case an oil lamp was used as a source for light, while in the two others wood or generator was used. Similarly, the workers in the first instance also used electricity for cooking while those on the second and third farms used wood. The worker on the first farm visited complained that while electricity was free in the past, they had been required to pay for it of late.
In all three cases, workers had access to a television set and a radio.
3. Recreation
One farm has a soccer field that can be accessed by other workers, although the two workers from other farms reported knowing about the field but not having access to it. It is unclear what forms of relaxation is available to the last two workers, apart from radio and television. The worker on the first farm visited mentioned that, at times, workers on the farm were required to work from six in the morning to six in the evening on Saturdays and Sundays. The farm in question is also home to a dairy concern that requires the extra work.
F Types of service delivery to farm workers
1. Awareness of available services
Clinics: Farmers and farm workers are generally all aware of the clinic in town as well as of the mobile clinic that visits the farms. Ambulances: All farmers and farm workers were aware of ambulances that would visit the farm if so required. Social services: All farmers were aware of social services and that such services were accessible in town. However, only one worker had an equivalent knowledge. Pensions and grants: Farmers were aware of all pensions and grants. However, one farm worker was not aware of child maintenance grants or old age pensions, while the other did not know about any grants or pensions at all. Only one farm worker was aware of all the pensions and grants. Adult education: Two farmers were aware that adult education was available in town, while one farm worker was aware of this. The two others workers had never heard of the concept. Department of Labour: All farmers were aware that the Department’s services were available in a nearby town. One farm worker knew of the Department but was not sure where it was located. Two other workers claimed never to have heard of the department. Police: All farmers and workers were aware that the services of the police was available in town as well as on the farms.
31 2. Utilisation of services on the farms
The following table shows the services available on the farms according to the farmers and farm workers interviewed.
Table 9: Awareness of services on the farms
Farm Farmer’s information about available Worker’s information on available services services Farm 1 Primary health Police Ambulance Transport by the farmer Taxi School Police Department of Labour Basic information regarding labour matters Farm 2 Primary health Disability grant Ambulance Transport by farmer Transport by the farmer Information regarding labour affairs Taxi Church Police Farm 3 Primary health Primary health Ambulance Ambulance Taxi Transport by farmer Basic information regarding labour matters Police
A mobile clinic visits the farms in question about four times a year. It clear that the farmers interviewed considered more services to be available than the farm workers.
3. The role of government
Farmers were of the opinion that government should offer the following services to themselves and to their workers: • Dissemination of information about subsidies • Transport for school children. • Skills training. • Social work to prevent problems such as excessive drinking amongst farm workers and guidelines on parenthood. • Improved housing (according to one farmer government should carry all the costs involved in the erection of new houses). • Electricity. • Warm water and a source of heating. • Housing or alternately pay rent on behalf of the workers living on the farm.
One farmer was very suspicious of government officials entering farms and described this as ‘unnecessary’. He went on to say that such visits would only cause ‘trouble’.
32 Another farmer ascribed wonderful educational qualities to television and thought that it would help to expand to the worker’s knowledge of the world. He did caution however, that such programmes would have to be of an educational nature and that it should not ‘incite’ the workers. The third farmer wished to see almost all responsibility concerning housing for farm workers shifted to governmental agencies. He believed that a government agency should provide workers with houses according to their specifications or alternately pay rent to the farmer to subsidise their accommodation on the farm.
4. The role of non-state organisations
Two farmers had prior experience of service delivery by non-state organisations. One such organisation marketed funeral policies to workers and the other consisted of a team of people doing educational work amongst farm workers on HIV/AIDS prevention. One farmer welcomed the development and said that such organisations should also do educational work on literacy and labour matters. The farmer whose farm had not been visited by such an organisation did not believe that such organisations had any role to play delivering services on farms.
5. Role of farmer’s organisations
Two farmers thought that farmer’s organisations could organise skills training courses for farm workers (such as tractor driving). One farmer stated that such organisations could inform workers of their rights according to labour legislation and assist in educating them about HIV/AIDS. Another farmer thought it could serve as a vehicle to discuss matters of concern, such as farm murders, with workers.
6. Role of churches
One farmer thought that the church had a role to play in the way of identifying and addressing social issues among the workers (such as alcohol abuse). Another thought that it could do evangelical a work and prepare workers in a ‘moral’ fashion. However, he indicated that in his experience workers were not interested in such activities.
G Residential options: Preferences of farmers and farm workers
The table below shows that all the workers interviewed would prefer to stay in town. By contrast, two farmers preferred to have a mixed work force and one would rather have the workers live on the farm.
33 Table 10: Residential preferences
View of Farm View of farmer Reasons Reasons worker Farm 1 Combination of Need casual workers Town None provided. Did town and farm certain times of the year. also not want provide Casual labourers are any advantages or better off staying in town. disadvantages coupled with living on the farm. Farm 2 Combination of Same as above. Town None provided town and farm despite advantages of farm such as free milk, maize meal, and the occasional sheep to slaughter. Farm 3 Farm Farm has a certain Town Yet did not mention ‘routine’. Tried recruiting any complaints about workers. from town but living on the farm they were not interested. other than being far from the town.
Farm workers were very reluctant too mention reasons why they would want to stay in town. As shown in the table above, two mentioned advantages to living on the farm. Two workers also indicated the reason they lived on the farm was because it is close to their place of work. This could suggest a disintegration of the so-called ‘patronage’ relationship that have characterised the dealings of farmers with their workers in the past. The fact that workers were reluctant to criticise their employers could suggest that this is not an avenue that is often pursued by them. It is however, regrettable, as it makes it difficult to discern any reasons behind their preference.
Workers listed the following advantages to living on the farm: • Can keep cattle. • Free goods such as milk, maize meal and meat. • Close to place of work.
H Rights
One farm had a cemetery on site. A farmer interviewed mentioned that such sites created problems concerning as to who could be allowed on the farm and that this posed a security risk given the increase in farm attacks. Another mentioned that the cemetery on his farm had already created ‘problems’ as a worker had recently been buried and that his children (not living on the farm) were trying to ‘intervene’. He went on to say that such sites could give rise to land claims.
34 I Travel arrangements: How strong are links between farm and town
1. Urban services
Workers visited town for several reasons: • Visiting family • Grocery shopping • Church attendance.
2. Transport facilities
One worker used a horse cart to visit town. The two others travelled with the farmer, one worker also indicated that in addition to the farmer, he also used a taxi. Two workers indicated that they would like to own their own means of transport. It should also be noted that the third farmer does provide transport to his workers to town, and charges them R50 for the occasion.
3. Commuting patterns
Two workers visited the town once a fortnight, while one visited it once a month.
J Farm worker’s livelihoods: Does the farm offer any options?
1. Cultivation
One worker was allowed to cultivate a vegetable garden.
2. Stock ownership
Stock ownership by farm workers is an emotive issue. It can be used as an indicator whether the farmer regards the labour relationship as ‘business’ relationship, a relationship where the worker has certain rights or even as a potential partnership (where the worker and farmer farm ‘together’). The table below shows that two of the three farmers were opposed to workers owning stock.
Table 11: Stock ownership and choice of residence
Farm Farmer’s views Reasons Farm 1 Sets limits on the numbers of the livestock The workers can sell it if they wish Farm 2 No It can cause problems in difficult times. Workers can use it ‘against you’ Farm 3 No Workers will then have ‘rights’ on the land. Does allow a vegetable garden
35 It should be noted that all of the workers interviewed, including the worker (on farm one) who is allowed to keep cattle, preferred to stay in town.
3. Previous training
One worker claimed to have been trained in farm management by the farmer. Another was trained in repairing farm vehicles and received literacy training from the farmer. A third said that he was taught how to ‘work with sheep’.
The table below shows the areas in which workers have been trained and what they would like to be trained in:
Table 12: Training experience and preferences
Number of farm workers Number who like to receive Subject who have received training training Wielding - 2 Animal diseases - 2 Farm management 1 1 Driver’s licence 3 Repair of farm equipment or 1 2 vehicles Literacy 1 1 Other 1 (sheep handling) -
The table above indicates a very low base of skills. Attaining a driver’s was the most desired skill among farm workers.
4. Training needs
The table below lists what the farmers and workers interviewed considered to be desirable training.
Table 13: Training preferred by farmers and workers
Farm Views of farmer Views of worker Skills pertaining to the particular farm Animal diseases (such as windmill maintenance and Driver’s licence Farm 1 dairy production). Repair of farm vehicles and equipment Religious education. Literacy Literacy. Welding Driver’s license. Driver’s licence Wool classification. Farm 2 Repair and maintenance of farm Hygiene. equipment Mohair treatment. Managing sheep and horses Hygiene training Welding Skills pertaining to the particular Animal diseases Farm 3 farm. Farm management ‘Sense of responsibility’. Driver’s license
36 From table above it is clear that only one the second farm did farmer and worker broadly agree on the types of training that would be desirable. In addition, one farmer also mentioned the need for religious ‘training’ and another the need for workers to be trained to develop a sense of ‘responsibility’. Such replies, along with ‘hygiene training’ provide a very candid glance at the social conditions of the workers as well as on how farmers think it could be addressed.
5. Training providers
The table below shows what institutions those interviewed should provide training to farm workers.
Table 14: Views about training providers
Farm Farmer’s views Worker’s views Farm 1 The state Government Farmer’s associations Church The farmer Farm 2 The farmer Farmer Farm 3 The farmer Farmer’s associations
It is notable that none of the farmers mentioned the Department of Labour as a training provider, this suggests that its courses in this regard is not being marketed effectively. It is clear that on the question of training, farm workers and farmers views roughly coincide on the question on who should assume responsibility for it. The third farmer interviewed suggested that workers ‘did not want to accept’ training.
K Support to emerging farmers
Two farm workers indicated that they would like to own their own farms, while one was unsure. The two that wanted farms felt that they were obstructed from acquiring by a lack of capital. Furthermore, one felt that it was the responsibility of the government to help him to acquire a farm, while the other did not know who, or what institution, to approach for assistance.
Farmers felt that the responsibility of the following agencies to assist emergent farmers:
Table 15: Support agencies for emergent farmers
Farmer Agency Farmer 1 Farmers Farmer Farmer 2 Department of Agriculture Farmer 3 Government
37 The third farmer felt that emergent farmers ‘had it too easy’. However, the views of the two others show a willingness of the side of farmers to help. As one farmer put ‘if we are not going to make it work then the government is going to make it work’.
L The farming ‘community’: Does it exist?
1. Developmental trends
The three farmers reported an increase in illnesses in the past few years. One indicated that he could observe the general level of physical strength declining in the workers. He went on to say that they got tired more often and that several infants had died. Another farmer echoed these sentiments and said that a more active approach to combat HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis was needed.
2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers
One farm worker indicated that he would ask the farmer for help when experiencing a particular problem. One mentioned that he would approach the government as well, but could not identify exactly what kind of help he expected from that quarter. The final worker suggested that he would only approach the municipality for help.
One farmer described his relationship with his workers by saying ‘we are like family’. He added that while the relationship was not without its problems, they generally shared each other’s pain and happiness. However, he went on to say that radio coverage of incidents of crime or cruelty involving white perpetrators and black victims, upsets workers and makes them ‘rebellious’. Another indicated that they shared a good relationship (which he called a community) but this was confined to farming. A third simply described it as a worker and employer relationship.
The information above suggests that with the exception of one farmer, the other farmers view their workers with a particular form of attachment. This should also be seen in light of the fact that not one of the workers interviewed preferred to live on a farm.
The table below correlates the farmer’s view of the relationship with the worker’s choice of residence.
Table 16: Views regarding social relations, stock keeping and residential preferences
Farm Farmer’s view of the Farmer’s view on stock Worker’s residential relationship keeping preference Farm 1 Patron ‘we are like Sets limits on the Town family’. numbers of the livestock Farm 2 ‘Community’ No Town Farm 3 Labour relationship No Town
38 It is notable that the two farmers who describe their relationship with their workers emotional terms employ workers who would rather live in town. If taken in conjuncture with the worker’s refusal to list any reasons why they would want to stay in town, the possibility presents itself that these two farmers are engaged in a form of self-delusion as to the actual state of their relationship with their workers. The relationships described are complex and have evolved over a long period of time. However, it can be deduced that the workers do not feel particularly close to the farmers concerned. Given the obvious lack of trust the third farmer displayed towards the workers, the choice of the worker to live in town is not surprising.
M Making the break: Former farm workers
1. What kinds of people?
One former farm worker was interviewed. The worker was male and between the ages of 46 and 50.
He was living alone and been to primary school up to standard two (grade four).
2. Farming heritage
The interviewee was not able to give an exact estimate of the number of years he had spent as a farm worker, but indicated that he had been engaged in this occupation ‘since his young days’. He was similarly not able to give an exact estimate on when he left the farm, but the impression was that of three to four years ago.
He indicated that his deteriorating health prompted him to leave the farm.
3. Quality of life
The interviewee lived in a temporary structure whereas he lived in a brick house on the farm.
The interviewee used a pit for sanitations purposes in town and on the farm. Similarly, a tap in the garden was used for water in both locations.
Electricity was used for lighting and fire for cooking and heating in the town and on the farm. At the time of writing the interviewee had access to a public telephone whereas he used the farmer’s phone while working on the farm.
He listed being near to services such as the clinic and church as the biggest advantage of living in town, however, he did indicate that he was going hungry and lacked food.
39 4. Livelihood and skills
The interviewee was unemployed at the time of the interview. However, he works as occasional labourer at times when surrounding farms needed more labour, such as during harvests. He indicated that he would like to work as a farm worker again. He had been trained in animal diseases while working on the farm and possessed a driver’s licence.
The interviewee would like to own his own cattle and vegetable farm. However, he lacks the necessary capital and equipment to initiate such a venture. If help should come from any quarter, he believes it should be the government.
40 Philippolis
Introduction
Interviews were held with eight farmers who farm in Philippolis District and with a worker from each of the farms. Amongst the criteria that were used to identify the farmers was their willingness to participate in the research project as well as the inclusion of a variety of farms and farming situations. In the town of Philippolis conversations were held with four ex-farm workers. These workers were known to the researchers.
The following limitations characterize the study and should be considered when the findings are interpreted and applied: • The study is not completely representative because of the limited number of farmers, farm workers and ex-farm workers who participated in the study. Thus, generalizations cannot simply be made without more ado. • Before starting, the questionnaires were not thoroughly tested and adapted for the various language groups represented by the participants. This made effective collection of relevant information difficult. • The qualitative aspects of the research were not thoroughly controlled because various researchers co-operated in different areas and no researcher was completely involved in the whole process. Perspectives and sentiments of individual researchers may therefore have played a role.
A. General background of farming area
1. Type of farm
The farmers tend to farm with sheep, and to a lesser extent, with cattle, goats, game and horses. This type of farming is not labour intensive, and consequently fewer workers are needed on a farm.
2. Spatial location
Due to the arid conditions of the Philippolis area, the farms are large. In this survey, the distance between the farms and the town vary from 12 to 42 km.
41 B. General background of farmers
1. Age
Diagram 1: Age Distribution of the farmers
3 2.5 2
1.5
1
0.5 0 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 56 - 60 61 - 65 66 - 70
Age distribution
This diagram shows that the farmers in the survey tend to be in their middle age and older. They have experience of farming, as well as the changes experienced during the last two decades.
2. Literacy/education
The participants have a high level of education. Two have matric, four have post- school diplomas, and two have degrees. One participant has a professional qualification, viz. in veterinary science.
3. Gender
Interviews were held with seven farmers and one farmer’s wife.
C. General background of farm workers
1. Age
Farm worker interviewees were typically 10-15 years younger than the farmers. The general impression is gained that the farmers have greater seniority than their workers. Five were aged less than 40, including two under the age of 25. Two workers were aged 40 to 45, while one was over the age of 45.
42 Diagram 1: Age Distribution of the farm workers
2
1.5
1
0.5
0 16 - 20 21 - 25 26 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 40 41- -45 46 - 50
Age distribution
2. Gender
All the farm worker participants were male.
3. Literacy
Four of the eight farm workers were illiterate. The other four workers have passed Grade 2 and grade 5.
4. Married status
One worker is unmarried, two are legally married, and five are married in common-law or in traditional marriages.
With one exception, the farm workers have relatively small families.
Table 1: Size of families of farm workers
Farm workers Size of family 1 worker 1 family member 2 workers 2 family members 2 workers 3 family members 2 workers 4 family members 1 worker 8 family members
D. Mobility and rootedness: Comparing farmers and farm workers
1. Length of residence
The farmers have farmed between 21 and 50 years on their farms. This indicates that they must have substantial levels of experience.
43 In contrast, the farm workers have not resided on the farm for many years. The maximum was 8 years.
Table 2: Length of residence on the farm
Farmer – length of time on Worker – length of time on
farm farm Farm A 25 8 Farm B 30 2 months Farm C 50 4 Farm D 33 11 Farm E 23 5 months Farm F 26 3 years Farm G 21 7 Farm H 49 8
Significantly, in all cases, the farmers had lived much longer on the farms than the workers. Furthermore, the relatively short periods which the farm workers had lived on the farms indicates a rapid turnover of labour.
With one exception, all the workers had worked on other farms in the district. The number of years worked as farm workers in the district ranged from 3 to 18, with one unusual case in which the farm worker had 30 years’ experience in the district.10 This indicates that farm workers tend to circulate amongst farms in the same district.
2. Farm workers’ residence
The number of farm workers on the farms were as follows:
Table 3: Farm workers employed on the farms, 2001 – 2003
Number of workers: 2001 Number of workers: 2003 Farm A 10 7 Farm B 2 1 Farm C 4 4 Farm D 9 7 Farm E 6 4 Farm F 6 6 Farm G 2 2 Farm H 7 5 Total 44 36
There has been a substantial reduction in the number of farm workers on the farms, from a total of 44 in 2001 to 36 in 2003. On four farms, the number had decreased, while on four farms, the number had stayed constant.
10 The length of work in the district were: 3, 5, 8, 11, 12, 18, 30.
44 There were no farm workers living in town, presumably because of the long distances between farms and the towns.
Table 4: Number of farm workers with families on the farm and in town
Farm workers with families living Farm workers with families living
on the farm in town Farm A 7 0 Farm B 1 0 Farm C 2 2 Farm D 3 1 Farm E 2 2 Farm F 6 0 Farm G 2 0 Farm H 4 1 Total 27 7
There is a tendency, although not a very strong one, of farm workers living on farms, while their families live in towns. This is the case with 7 families, compared to the 27 farm workers who still have their families living with them on the farm.
3. Farm workers’ family residence
The following table shows that 34 women reside on the eight farms (36 farm workers) under review. There are 27 children, including 11 pre-school children and 15 school children.
Table 5: Number of women and children on the farms
Number of Pre-school Primary school High school FARM women children children children Farm A 7 Farm B 1 1 1 Farm C 2 3 Farm D 6 2 4 Farm E 4 2 Farm F 7 3 2 Farm G 2 1 2 Farm H 5 2 3 1 Total 34 11 15 1
E. Quality of life: Levels of infrastructure for farm workers
1. Housing
All the farm workers live in brick houses.
45 2. Infrastructure
On two of the farms, there are no toilets, but these are under construction. Five farms have pit toilets, and one has a VIP toilet.
There are two farm worker houses with an outside tap. The other farm worker houses all have running water in their homes. On some farms, there are taps in the gardens of the farm workers.
Table 6: Infrastructure for farm workers
FARM WATER TOILETS ENERGY PHONE Farm A In-house None Electricity Farmer Wood Farm B In-house Flush Electricity Farmer Pit Wood Farm C In-house Pit Electricity Farmer Outside tap Wood Farm D In-house Pit Electricity Farmer Wood Farm E Outside tap Flush Electricity Farmer Wood Farm F Outside tap None11 Electricity Farmer Wood Farm G Outside tap VIP Electricity Farmer Wood Farm H In-house None Electricity Farmer Wood
Typically, electricity is used for lighting, wood fire for cooking, and fires for heating.
One of the workers noted that they have a serious need for a public telephone.
All the workers have access to a radio, and four have access to a TV set.
3. Recreation
Only one farm has a soccer field, but because there are so few workers, soccer is not played any more. The impression is gained that workers do not have constructive activities during their free time.
11 A discrepancy in the answers: The farmer maintains there is are pit toilets, while the worker maintains there is no sanitation.
46 F. Types and levels of service delivery to farm workers
1. Awareness of available services
• Clinics: The farmers and the workers are aware of the clinic in town, and the mobile clinic which visits the farm. The farmer workers visit the clinic when necessary. • Ambulances: With the exception of two workers, all the workers and farmers are aware of the ambulance service. • Social services: The farmers, as well as half the workers, are aware of social services. • Pensions and grants: The farmers are all aware of the various pensions and grants. Four of the workers were aware of all the grants. Significantly, four workers were not aware of the child maintenance grant, three did not know of the disability grant, and two were not aware of any of the pensions or grants. • Education: All the farmers and workers are aware of the schools in town. A major problem is the accommodation of children in town so that they can attend school. The farmers recommended that accommodation facilities should be established in town for the children, as an urgent necessity. The farm workers tended to agree with this view. • Adult education: Three of the farmers and two farm workers were not aware of an adult education programme although such a programme is presented in town. • Department of Labour: The farmers were all aware of the Department, but only three farm workers were aware of their services. • Police: The services of the police are generally known, and such services are available on the farms as well as the towns.
2. Utilisation of services on the farms
The following table illustrates the services which are available on-site, i.e. on the farms.
Table 7: Awareness of services on the farms
Farmer’s information about Farm worker’s information about FARM services on the farm services offered on the farm Farm A None Primary health (mobile clinic?) Farm B Primary health Primary health Department of Labour Information about labour matters Police Farm C Primary health None Farm D Primary health Primary health Department of Labour Churches Churches
47 Farmer’s information about Farm worker’s information about FARM services on the farm services offered on the farm Farm E Primary health Primary health Farm F Primary health Primary health Department of Labour Social services Churches Farm G Primary health Primary health Ambulance Adult education Social services Taxi Taxi Church Department of Labour Police Police Farm H Primary health Primary health Department of Labour Police
A few points are noteworthy: • There appear to be mobile clinic visits, although it is not clear how frequently they visit, where they visit, or what services are offered • The farmers seem to know about services offered by the Department of Labour, but farm workers do not seem aware of these services • A few workers attend church services on the farm, but it is not clear who leads these services.
3. The role of government
The farmers do not mind that officials of government departments visit the farms, but they must make appointments ahead of time, and must not incite the workers. The farmers suggested that the following services should be offered: • Road maintenance (4 cases) • Providing public telephones on farms • Cell phone infrastructure • More medicines at the clinic • More farm schools, so that farm children learn about agriculture • Public recreation facilities • Public transport (2 cases). • Subsidies for farm workers • Servicing of pit toilets • Water connections to homes • Provision of housing in town for pensioners • Residences for school children in town (3 cases) • Electricity for farm workers • In-service training
Three farmers were concerned that government should not become too involved in service delivery, because government officials will then make demands on the farmers, and thereby sour relations.
48 4. The role of non-state organisations
With the exception of two farms where the Free State Rural Development Partnership Programme (FSRDPP)12 is active, there are no NGOs providing services.
5. The role of farmers’ organisations
Five farmers felt that the farmers’ association can play a meaningful role, while three felt that this was not the case.
The farmers believe that the farmers’ association has primarily an education function. One farmer mentioned that the farmers’ association can establish a labour pool of workers, so that those workers can secure employment or piece-work. Another farmer argued that the farmers’ association can play a role in supporting emergent farmers.
6. The role of churches
In general, the farmers and workers are well informed about the activities of churches. Some of the farmers recommended that churches have more services for farm workers, and provide more spiritual support. The churches should also play a greater role in promoting charity for the poor.
G. Residential options: Preferences of farmers and farm workers?
1. Current residential patterns
As the table below shows, six farmers preferred workers living on the farm, and two preferred workers living in town.
In contrast, four workers preferred to live on the farm, and four preferred to live in town.
In only two cases did the farmer and worker agree on their preferences. In four cases, the farmer preferred the worker to live on the farm, but the worker preferred to live in town. Conversely, in two cases, the farmer preferred the worker to live in town, but the worker preferred to live on the farm.
These are complex issues, as the table shows. In almost all cases, interviewees had powerful reasons in favour of an option, but were also aware of counter-arguments or negative factors.
12 An outreach project led by the University of the Free State.
49 A general observation can be made: There is a general tension between the residential advantages derived from living on the farm (free housing, water and electricity) and the social services obtained in the towns (schools and clinics). This is a direct consequence of the abolition of the Rural Foundation, which had encouraged the provision of social services provided by the farmers.
Table 8: Residential preferences
Farm Farmer’s FARM Reasons worker’s Reasons preference preference Farm A Farm Workers are nearby when Town None given, despite needed advantages of farm (free Lower transport costs water, electricity, accommodation) Farm B Farm Lower transport costs Town Town is currently too far. Labour nearby Housing Prefer town, despite available. Problems are advantages of farm (free dependency on farmer for water, electricity, transport, and children at accommodation). school in town. But cannot find work in town. Farm C Farm Lower transport costs. Town Town is too far away. Lower travel time. Difficult to get services and Farm worker shares game accommodation for hunting. schoolchildren. Separation More food available. from children during term. Less alcohol abuse. Prefer town, despite Problems are long advantages of farm (free distances and children at water, electricity, school in town. accommodation) Farm D Town, but Housing available on farm Farm Free water, electricity, distances Free transport, water, accommodation, family is too great electricity, milk, clothing. nearby, less overcrowding But problem of distance to than in town, less “trouble” services. than in town. Children are safe when parents are at work. Problems are distances to town, and distances to services, e.g. school and clinic. Farm E Town Legislation Farm Free water and Fewer social problems accommodation. However, Fewer problems with theft. distance to town is a Workers will be near problem. services. However, they will then have to pay for services. Farm F Farm Distance to town. Town Farm too far from town. Workers nearby when Prefer town, despite needed, including some advantages of farm – free weekends. water ,electricity, Transport of school accommodation, and family children is a problem. is nearby. Farm G Farm Lower transport costs. Farm Free water, accommodation, Problem of accessing family is nearby. But services and dependency problem of distance from on transport provided by town. farmer.
50 Farm Farmer’s FARM Reasons worker’s Reasons preference preference Farm H Farm Lower transport costs. Farm Free water, electricity, Labour nearby. accommodation. However, problems are access to services, accommodation of children at school, and does not own his own house.
In general, the reasons offered by farm workers why they prefer to live on the farms, are: • Free housing, water, electricity • Free transport • Children are safe when parents are at work. • Free food • There is no work available in the town • Family lives on the farm • There is less “trouble” than in town • Can keep sheep.
These reasons indicate that there are still powerful “patronage” relationships between farmers and farm workers. Free housing, water, electricity, transport and food tend to suggest that farmers and workers do not regard each other as in a purely commercial relationship.
According to the farm workers, the disadvantages of living on the farm are: • Distances to services (school, clinic, church) are great • Cannot own my own home • Family is divided during term-time.
Farm workers have had to figure out innovative ways of accessing services in town. Three of the workers have families who live in the town with the school children during term-time. This means that the breadwinner is separated from his family for long periods.
The majority of farmers tended to prefer their workers living on the farm, due to the following reasons: • Reduced transport costs • Labour is nearby when needed • It would be time-consuming to transport workers to town and back • Workers are sometimes on duty over weekends.
The two farmers who indicated that they would prefer their workers living in town, offered the following reasons: • Fewer social problems
51 • Less theft • Current legislation discourages on-farm accommodation.
H. Rights
On seven farms, the workers have their own graveyard. Two of these workers prefer to bury their family members in town, where they are near other family members.
Several farmers noted that the on-farm cemetery is only for workers, and not for members of extended families. Two farmers also remarked that it is becoming a risk to have an on-farm cemetery, due to land tenure legislation.
I. Travel and transport arrangements: How strong are the links between farm and town?
1. Urban services
The farm workers visit town for several reasons: • Church attendance • Visiting family • Visiting doctor and clinic • Shopping and services.
2. Transport services
The table below illustrates the types of transport available to farm workers:
Table 9: Transport services of farm workers
Number of workers using this mode of Type of transport transport Own car 1 Travel with the farmer 7 Taxi 2 Walking 2 Bicycle 3 Horse/donkey 2
3. Commuting patterns
Only three farmers use piece workers, e.g. for fence-making and sheep-shearing. The farmers then provide the transport.
One farm worker visits town every weekend. The others all visit town once a month.
52 J. Farm workers’ livelihoods – Does the farm offer any options?
1. Cultivation
Farm workers are allowed to cultivate vegetables on all farms in the survey.
2. Stock ownership
The issue of stock ownership is potentially a very important one. It indicates whether a farmer regards the labour relationship as a “pure” labour relationship (the worker simply sells his/her labour power), as opposed to a quasi-feudal relationship (the worker has certain production rights) or even a potential partnership (the worker and farmer may begin to “farm together”).
Table 10: Stock ownership and choice of residence
Farm Farmer’s views of stock worker’s FARM Reasons ownership residential preference Farm A No This has failed in the past. Workers Town are not sufficiently motivated. Farm B No Stock-carrying capacity of farm is too Town limited. Farm C Yes Promotes farm worker’s interest in Town farming enterprise. Farm D No13 Can lead to permanent tenure. In Farm the past, stock-keeping was allowed, but this is now too much of a danger in terms of tenure legislation. Farm E No – except horses for Farm transport. Farm F Yes – sheep and horses Town and poultry14 Farm G Yes – sheep and horses Farm Farm H Yes – a few sheep15 Farm
As the third column indicates, there is some correlation between farm workers’ desire to live in town, and the fact that they are not allowed to keep stock (Farms A, B). There are two cases where the worker prefers to live on the farm, and stock ownership is allowed (Farms G and H), although this is qualified by the fact that the worker on Farm H does not actually keep stock.
Curiously, there are two counter-intuitive cases (Farms C and F) where the farmer allows or encourages stock ownership, but nevertheless the worker would prefer to live in town. This may suggest that the need to be near urban services is stronger for these workers
13 Curiously, the farm worker indicated that he does keep stock. 14 The farm worker indicated that he does not keep stock. 15 The farm worker indicated that he does not keep stock, even though it seems he is allowed to do so.
53 than the need to engage in farming. However, it may also suggest that the worker would like to live in town, but nevertheless still keep stock on the farm (i.e. the best of both possible worlds). This would be roughly similar to many farmers who prefer to live in town, and draw on urban and farming livelihoods or services simultaneously.
There are also two counter-intuitive cases (Farms D and E) where stock ownership is not allowed, but the farm workers still prefer to live on the farm.
3. Previous training
The following table indicates the types of training, which farm workers have received in the past:
Table 11: Training experience and preferences
Number of farm Number of farm Subject workers who have workers who would like received training to receive training Welding 1 6 Animal diseases 7 Farm management 6 Driver’s licence 1 7 Repair of farm equipment and vehicles 7 Literacy 4 3
This table illustrates the very low level of formal training of the farm workers (although it is possible that they may have extensive skills which are not the result of formal training). It is remarkable that only one of the eight farm workers interviewed has a driver’s licence, and only four have had some kind of literacy training.
The table also indicates a widespread desire for training (although it is not clear whether such a desire will be sufficient motivation to actually complete a course).
The widespread desire to learn about animal diseases (seven interviewees), farm management (6 interviewees), and repair of farm equipment (7 interviewees) does suggest an interest in farming.
4. Training needs
The farmers indicated the training topics which they believe the farm workers will benefit from:
54 Table 12: Training preferred by farmers and workers
Subject Number of farmers who approve of training Welding Farm C - Farm E Farm G - Animal diseases Farm B Farm E Farm F - Farm G - Farm management and entrepreneurship Farm A Farm B (selected farm workers) Farm C (for workers with “potential”) Farm D Farm E (selected farm workers) Farm H - Farm G – (selected farm workers) Driver’s licence Farm D Farm F - Farm G - Repair of farm vehicles and equipment Farm C - Farm G - Literacy Farm A Farm B Farm C - Farm D Farm G - Sheep shearing Farm B Farm D Farm E Farm G - Life skills (including parenting) Farm D Farm G - Farm H - Construction Farm E Water infrastructure maintenance Farm E Farm G - Domestic work Farm F - Financial management Farm H General farming methods Farm B Farm H How to dose sheep Farm B
Table 12 suggests a general desire, on the part of farmers, to have a better qualified and skilled workforce. This contrasts strongly with the very low level of skills training which workers have received (see Table 11 above).
There may be some correlation between the farmers’ enthusiasm for farm worker training, and farmers’ sentiments on stock ownership (see Table 15). The prevalence of Farms C, F, G and H (as marked in the table above) as regards desire for training should be noted; these are the same farmers who indicated that stock ownership by farm workers is allowed on their farm. However, this correlation needs to be further investigated. It is possible that farmers who do not want to allow stock ownership may well have a preference for highly qualified workers.
55 The following table shows the views on training on a farm-by-farm basis:
Table 13: Views about training provision
Farmer’s views of desirable Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM training training Farm A Literacy, farm management, Welding, animal diseases, farm entrepreneurship management, driver’s licence, vehicle repair. Has had literacy training! Farm B Animal management, farming Welding, animal diseases, farm methods, literacy, farm management, management, driver’s licence, vehicle entrepreneurship repair, literacy, farm equipment (windmills) Farm C Welding, tractor maintenance, literacy, Welding, animal diseases, farm farm management and management, vehicle repair, literacy. entrepreneurship (those workers with Has a driver’s licence. “potential”) Farm D Sheep shearing, driver’s licence, Welding, farm animal diseases, farm literacy , life skills, management, driver’s licence, vehicle Farm management and repair. Has had literacy training. entrepreneurship Farm E Construction, welding, water Welding, farm animal diseases, farm infrastructure maintenance, sheep management, driver’s licence, vehicle shearing, animal diseases, farm repair. Has had literacy training. management and potential (selected workers) Farm F Housework, driver’s licence, animal Vehicle repair, driver’s licence diseases, entrepreneurship Farm G All types of training Animal diseases, literacy Farm H Farming methods, financial Welding, animal diseases, farm management, parenting skills, management, driver’s licence, vehicle Farm management, entrepreneurship. repair. Has had literacy training.
The overriding impression is gained that there is a great desire, on the part of farmers and farm workers, to “up-skill” farm work. Furthermore, it appears that there have been virtually no training opportunities – possibly as a consequence of the abolition of the Rural Foundation, as well as the fact that the services provided by the Department of Labour have not been accessed. (The reasons for this remain unclear). It appears that there is a vast reservoir of desire for expertise, and yet no means have been found to build the expertise. Demands and needs remain unmet.
5. Training providers
Table 14: Views about training providers
Farmer’s views of desirable Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM training providers training providers Farm A Farm workers should access this Farmer training by themselves. Government Farm B Department of Agriculture Farmer Agricultural colleges Government Farm C Farmers’ Association Government Farm D Farmer Farmers’ Association Farmers’ Association Farm E NWGA (National Wool Growers Farmer Association) Training Solutions Government
56 Farmer’s views of desirable Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM training providers training providers Farm F Farmer’s Association Government Farmer – in-service training Farm G Farmers’ Association Farmer Agricultural college (e.g. Boskop) Government – Department of Agriculture Farm H Farmers’ association Farmer. Farmer Farmer’s wife
Several points should be noted from this table. Firstly, several farmers and farm workers believe that the farmers or farmers’ associations should provide training – presumably a type of in-service training. This indicates a generally supportive attitude on the part of farmers. Secondly, there was no explicit reference to the Department of Labour, which suggests that its training programmes are not being marketed effectively. Thirdly, there is an evident need for agricultural colleges, but at present, there are virtually no agricultural colleges offering training to farm workers any more.
The overall impression is one of enormous need and desire for training, but no coherent systems of training provision.
K. Support to emergent farmers
1. The ideal of farm ownership
With one exception, all the farm workers indicated that they would like to have their own farming enterprises. However, they have been obstructed by the lack of capital to buy a farm and farming equipment, as well as a lack of experience and training to start such an enterprise.
Farmers suggested that the following agencies should assist emergent farmers: • Government (to provide training and finance) – Farm A, Farm B (Department of Agriculture), Farm C, Farm D, Farm E (Department of Agriculture), Farm G, Farm H. • Farmers – Farm B, Farm C, Farm G • Farmers’ unions – Farm F, Farm G • Agricultural colleges – Farm D • Agricultural credit and subsidies – Farm E.
These views indicate that farmers place a great deal of store in the capacity of the Department of Agriculture – which is generally one of the more under-funded and understaffed government departments. Furthermore, these views indicate a willingness on the part of farmers to help, whether in their private capacity, or through the farmers’ unions.
57 L. The “farming community” – a community only in name?
1. Developmental needs
Five farmers maintained that health and social problems have not increased. Three farmers even believed that alcohol abuse has decreased, and attribute it to the fact that workers have more spiritual (church-based) activities. One farmer mentioned that leadership figures amongst the farm workers, especially women, have died, which has led to social problems such as alcohol abuse. One farmer mentioned that more attention should be provided to TB patients, and another suggested that the increased wages have encouraged workers to spend more on alcohol, which has led to greater alcohol abuse.
2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers
All the workers suggested that they would approach the farmer for help, especially for financial assistance, transport and the use of the telephone. Seven workers indicated that they would ask the farmer’s wife for medical assistance and advice. Two workers maintained that they would approach the municipality, the government, the church and the farmers’ association for help, but it is difficult to reach them.
Five farmers believe that they have a patron-relationship with their workers. Workers will ask for help, and they were happy to provide assistance. Three farmers described it as a quasi-family relationship, and that there is a great deal of mutual dependency.
According to the farmers, the farmer’s wife can play a role regarding medical help, purchasing of supplies, transport of workers, and training. However, one farmer mentioned that farmers’ wives, who have full-time jobs, are finding it increasingly difficult to play a meaningful role.
Table 15: Farmers’ views of their relationship with farm workers
Farmer’s views of Farmer’s views on Farmer’s views on FARM paternalistic residence of farm stock keeping relationship workers Farm A Patron16 Farm No Labour relationship Farm B Labour relationship Farm No Caring relationship Farm C Labour relationship Farm Yes Patron Farm D Labour relationship Town No Patron Farm E Patron relationship with Town No older workers Labour relationship with piece-workers
16 The Afrikaans word “voog” is typically used.
58 Farmer’s views of Farmer’s views on Farmer’s views on FARM paternalistic residence of farm stock keeping relationship workers Farm F Labour relationship Farm Yes Almost family relationship – mutual dependency Farm G Combination of a labour Farm Yes and family relationship Farm H Labour relationship Farm Yes A “farm community”
This table reflects a curious anomaly. Four farmers describe their relationship in paternalistic or patronage terms, and yet do not want farm workers to keep stock.
There is only one clear case in which a farmer prefers workers to live on the farm, as well as have the rights to keep stock. In his case, the term “farm community” becomes meaningful.
M. Making the break: The fate of ex-farm workers
1. What kinds of people?
Four ex-farm workers were interviewed.
Two of the ex-farm workers are between the ages of 41 and 55, while the others are in the 60-70 year age group.
The families of these farm workers are respectively 7 members, 7, 8 and 10. These are significantly larger than the families of farm workers who were interviewed. It is possible that ex-farm workers are caring for relatives and orphans.
The ex-farm workers’ level of literacy is low. One is illiterate, two have primary school education, and one has passed Grade 9.
2. The farming heritage
The ex-farm workers had lengthy experience on the farms. Their experience ranges from 7 years to 20, 30 and 54 years respectively.
One person has been out of agriculture for only 7 months, one for 2 years, one for 10 years, and one for 20 years.
When asked why they left farm work, the following reasons were noted: • Found a better job • Children at school in town, and transport problems • Closer to services
59 • Better money in town • Health problems.
3. Quality of life
All the ex-farm workers live in brick houses, which they own. On the farms, they also lived in brick houses.
All have flush toilets. On the farms, only one farm worker had a flush toilet, one had a pit toilet, and two others had no sanitation at all.
The interviewees all have taps in their houses and gardens. In contrast, only one person used to have an in-house tap, while all the others had communal taps.
All interviewees have electricity in their homes. They also use wood fires and wood stoves for heating and food preparation. On the farms they did not have electricity, and used to use fires, wood stoves, candles and oil lamps. This suggests that electricity supply has only been extended to farms during the last few years.
Three of the ex-farm workers have telephones in their homes, and one has access to a public telephone. This compares to their life on the arms, when they were all dependent on the farmer’s telephone.
Three of the interviewees have their own vehicles, and the fourth has a bicycle.
The interviewees noted several advantages of living in town: • They own their own houses • They are near the clinic • They are near family members • They are near sport and recreation facilities • They can attend social gatherings and events.
However, there are also some disadvantages: • They have to pay for water and electricity • They cannot keep stock • Those who keep stock on the commonage complain of stock losses due to vagrant dogs.
4. Changing livelihoods
Of the four ex-farm workers, one is unemployed, two have formal jobs, and two work for themselves (a dairy, agriculture on a small holding, and making coffins).
60 Only one of the interviewees wants to work on a farm again, on the grounds that he would have fewer worries and would be more dependent on the farmer. The other interviewees do not want farm work again, for various reasons: (1) health problems, (2) wages too low; and (3) no real return on effort put in.
All four interviewees have tried to farm on their own (with sheep and cattle). Two are still involved in small-scale farming, and one would like to start a poultry farm.
Difficulties with farming enterprises are the lack of capital, land is not available, and there is no appropriate training.
5. Skills base
Table 16: Training experience and needs
Number of ex-farm Number of ex-farm Subject workers who received workers who would training like to receive training Welding 1 2 Animal diseases 2 4 Farm management 3 3 Farming methods 2 2 Driver’s licence 3 1 Repair of farm vehicles and equipment 3 2 Literacy 1 3 Sheep shearing 4 1 Construction and woodwork 3
Various training providers were noted: Department of Labour, the farmers, the municipality, and self-training. The interviewees also maintained that the government and farmers’ associations should provide training.
Several interesting conclusions are apparent from Table 16 above. Firstly, the ex-farm workers have a much higher level and diversity of skills than the current farm workers. Clearly, farm worker training used to be more accessible and widespread than it has been recently. This should be a cause for concern. Secondly, there is a great deal of farming-oriented skills available in the towns, with far too few opportunities for those skills to be utilised (e.g. in urban agriculture).
61 Colesberg
Abbreviations: F = Farmers questionnaire FW = Farm workers’ questionnaire
Introduction
Interviews were held with seven farmers who farm in Colesberg District and with a worker from each of the farms. Amongst the criteria that were used to identify the farmers was their willingness to participate in the research project as well as the inclusion of a variety of farms and farming situations.
A. General background of farming area
1. Type of farm
The farmers tend to farm predominantly with sheep, cattle and game on the one hand, and on the other hand they are irrigation farmers, plating lucerne and maize. There are also instances of farming with vegetables like potato and carrots.
2. Spatial location
The farms are large because the farmers farm predominately with sheep and cattle and the farms. In this survey, the distance between the farms and the town vary from 10 to 50 km.
B. General background of farmers
1. Age
The ages of the farmers in the survey varied with some farmers still very young and others very old. Two of them are in their thirties (35 and 36), one is in his forties (45), two are in their fifties (53 and 56), one is in his sixties (68) and lastly, one is in his seventies (72). Some of them have vast experience of farming and were part of all the changes in the last ten years, while others were not part of the changes and do not have the same kind of experience. Two of them can be decribed as emergent white commercial farmers. They face the same kinds of problems emergent black farmers are facing, but without the fanancial support that the black farmers have.
2. Literacy/education
The skills level of the participants varies from having passed grade 12 up to having a B.Sc. degree. Two of the participants have passed grade 12 (Farm D & F). Four of
62 them have obtained diplomas, two in agriculture (Farm C & E), one have a diploma in dentistry and one have a NTS 2. Only one of the participants had an university qualification, he had obtained a B.Sc. degree in General Sciences.
3. Gender
Interviews were held with six farmers and one wife of a farmer. In total, seven interviews were conducted.
C. General background of farm workers
1. Age
The age distribution of the workers range from early in their twenties up till late in their fifties. The youngest worker was 24 year old, then there was 2 workers in their thirties (both were 34). Two workers in their forties (both were 44) and two workers in their fifties (51 & 59). In some cases the workers are much younger than the farmers (Farm C, D & G). Here the farmers are between 19 and 28 years older than the workers.
2. Gender
Six of the workers that were interviewed were male and one was female.
3. Literacy
Three of the seven farm workers were illiterate. The other five workers have passed respectively grades 3, 7 (two of them) and 8.
4. Married status
Two workers are legally married (farm D &F), three are married in common-law or in traditional marriages (Farm A, B & G), one is separated from his wife but not divorced and living with another woman (Farm C) and one is a widower (Farm E). The workers have relative small to medium families:
Table 1: Size of families of farm workers
Farm Workers Size Of Family 1 worker Farm A 3 family members 1 worker Farm B 2 family members 1 family member (4 children living in town 1 worker Farm C with family) 2 workers Farm D 5 family members 1 worker Farm E 5 family members 1 worker Farm F 6 family members 1 worker Farm G 2 family members
63 D. Mobility and rootedness: Comparing farmers and farm workers
1. Length of residence
The farmers have farmed between 1 year and 35 years on their farms. If taken into account that they have been farming in the district between 15 years and 59 years it means that they have substantial experience as farmers. It is also interesting to note that some of the farmers have spent their whole lives on farmers in the district, and when interviewed and asked how long are they farming in the district, they have replied since they were born. From this we can deduce that they view farming not only as a business, but also as a form of identity, i.e. they were born as farmers and grew up as farmers.
Table 2: Length of residence on the farm
Farmer – length Farmer – length Worker – length Worker – length
of time on farm of time in district of time on farm of time in district Farm A 15 years 15 years 5 years 34 years Farm B 8 years 9 years A few years A long time Farm C 44 years 44 years 4 months17 25 years Farm D 7 years 18 years 7 years 7 years18 Farm E 40 years 40 years 33 years 33 years Farm F 6 years 6 years 6 years 41 years Farm G 12 years 16 years 2 years 2 years-
With the exception of one worker, al the other workers have been working for a long period of time on the farm, the period of time ranges from 2 years up to 33 years. The workers are also vastly experienced being farm workers for between 2 years and 41 years. Four of the workers have been farm workers for more than 25 years (Farm C – 25 years, Farm E – 33 years, Farm A – 34 years and Farm F 41 years). In the case of farm F the worker there is much more experienced as the farmer, the farmer being a farmer for only 6 years, while the worker being a worker for 41 years.
2. Farm workers’ residence
The number of farm workers on the farms was as follows:
17 This worker is a “Karretjies-mens”, he only works on the farm for a short period of time, and then leaves again. When he feels he needs to work again, he returns to the same farm to resume his work. It is interesting to note that the farmer accepts this routine.
18 She is seven years in the Colesberg district, but she and her family have been their whole live with the farmer. They have been working for the farmer’s family for three generations.
64 Table 3: Farm workers employed on the farms, 2001 – 2003
Number of workers: 2001 Number of workers: 2003 Farm A19 5 2 Farm B20 4 3 Farm C 1 121 Farm D 23 17 Farm E 7 7 Farm F 7 422 Farm G23 7 4 Total 54 39
On five farms there was a reduction in the amount of workers that they use (farms A, B, D, F and G) and this was due to the new labour laws. In two cases, the number of workers stayed the same (farms C and E). On none of the farms there was an increase in the number of workers.
Table 4: Number of farm workers with families on the farm and in town
Farm workers with families Farm workers with families
living on the farm living in town Farm A 5 1 Farm B 1 1 Farm C24 1 1 Farm D 9 The casuals Farm E 2 5 Farm F 3 0 Farm G 2 1 Total 23 9
The majority of the workers still live on the farm with their families. There is however a small tendency (farm E) for farmers to make use of workers living in town. The farmer of Farm G indicated that eventually he wants all his workers living in town.
19 The farmer’s wife indicated that there were 3 workers in 2001 and 4 workers in 2003, but she was not sure because her husband only took the farming activities over in the last years. The worker on the other hand was in 2001 living on the farm and should therefore be a better reference. 20 One worker lives on the farm, another worker lives in town and a third worker lives on a “veepo”s. There are therefore 3 workers employed by the farmer in 2003. In 2001 he had 4 workers. This might be the reason why the farmer only indicated that there is one worker on the farm (2003) and that is was also the case for 2001. 21 The Farmer indicated that there was a change concerning the worker, it is not the same worker than in 2001. This might explain why the worker indicated that there were 2 workers on the farm in 2001. 22 The farm worker here indicated that they were only 3 workers, because a worker left the farm the previous month and moved to town. 23 There was a discrepancy here in the amount of workers for 2001 and 2003 when we look at the farmer and the workers account. According to the farmer the figures were 7 (2001) and 4 (2003), while the worker indicated that the figures were 5 (2001) and 3 (2003). 24 This is one and the same worker, he has a wife living in town with his children in a shanty that belong to him, and then he has a girlfriend living with him on the farm.
65 There is also a tendency for farm workers to work in the week on the farm and to return to town over the week-end to be with their families. The reason for this is that farmers feel it is safer on the one hand and that they then do not have to deal with al the social problems that occur on the farms in over the weekends, and on the other hand farm workers choose to have their families in town for their children to attend school.
3. Farm workers’ family residence
The following table shows that 30 women reside on the seven farms (54 workers in total) under review. There are 55 children, including 21 pre-school children, 25 primary school children and 9 high school children.
Table 5: Number of women and children on the farms
Number of Pre-school Primary school High school FARM women children children children Farm A 4 1 3 3 Farm B 3 1 0 0 Farm C 2 0 0 0 Farm D 9 10 12 2 Farm E 6 5 5 1 Farm F 4 2 4 1 Farm G 2 2 1 2 Total 30 21 25 9
E. Quality of life: Levels of infrastructure for farm workers
1. Housing
All the workers live in brick houses. The sizes of the houses vary from two rooms to five rooms. Only one worker indicated that his family are living in a shanty, and that he also lives in the shanty over week-ends, when he visits them (farm C).
2. Infrastructure
On three of the farms there is adequate sanitation. Three farm workers have access to flush toilets. On two of the farms it is unclear what the situation is. The farmers insist that there are pit toilets, while the workers are of the opinion that there is not a pit toilet and that all the workers of that farm goes to the veld.
There is one farm worker house with an outside tap. Four farm worker houses have running water in their homes. In the case of the outside taps, the taps were in the gardens of the farm workers. Two farm workers have no access to taps and one must fetch water for household use from the nearby dam, while the other worker fetches water from the garden of the farmer.
66 Typically, electricity is used for lighting, wood fire for cooking, and fires for heating.
Seven of the workers own a radio. Three of the workers own televisions and two have access to a television25 and two have no access to a television.
Table 6: Infrastructure for farm workers
Farm Water Toilets Energy Phone Farm A No taps – draw None Wood27 Farmer water at the farmer’s house26 Farm B Tap in house Flush Electricity Cell Phone Wood Farm C No taps – get None Wood29 Farmer water from dam28 Farm D Tap in house Flush Electricity Cell Phone Wood Farmer Farm E Tap in House Flush Electricity Farmer Tap in Garden Wood Farm F Communal Tap None30 Electricity Farmer Wood Farm G Tap in house None31 Electricity Farmer Wood
3. Recreation
None of the farm workers have access to sports fields. Recreation for farm workers remains a problem, and several farmers remarked that the workers’ only recreation seems to be alcohol abuse over weekends.
F. Types and levels of service delivery to farm workers
1. Awareness of available services
• Clinics: The farmers and the workers are aware of the clinic in town. Two farmers mentioned that a mobile clinic visits the farm schools on a quarterly basis, but the workers were not aware of this service. The farmers visit the clinic when necessary and if their workers are ill they take them to town to the clinic.
25 On this farms the farmers build a television rooms for the workers were they can go and watch television. 26 The farmer was of the opinion that the workers have taps in their gardens, on closer investigation this was shown not to be true. 27 According to the farmer there is electricity on the farm, this is true for his house but the workers don’t have electricity at their houses. 28 The farmer was of the opinion that the workers have taps in their gardens, on closer investigation this was shown not to be true. 29 According to the farmer there is electricity on the farm, this is true for his house but the workers don’t have electricity at their houses. 30 The farmer claimed that he applied for subsidies from Bo Karoo district municipality to build VIP toilets, but that they didn’t want to help him. They only gave him a plan of a toilet and this plan was not do-able. 31 There is a pit toilet, but it is full and the workers don’t use it anymore.
67 • Ambulances: All of the respondents in the interviews were aware of the ambulance service and all but one also knew that the ambulance will come out to the farm in case of en emergency. • Social services: Some of the respondents were aware of the existence of social services. Only one worker indicated that a social worker visited him on the farm. In general there was not a very high awareness of the social services and the programmes they had to offer. • Pensions and grants: Only one of the farmers was aware of the full range of social pensions and grants, while two farmers were not aware of old age pension and grants for children. No farm workers were aware of the full range of pensions and grants that are available. Six farm workers were aware of old age pension and disability grants, while only five were aware of the child maintenance grants. • Education: All the farmers and workers are aware of the schools in town. They are also aware of a farm school in the district where some of the farm workers children attend school. • Adult education: Three farmers were aware of adult education programmes. Five farmers were not at all aware of the existence of an adult educational programme, while all seven of the farmers interviewed did not know where to access the programme. Five farm workers were aware of an adult educational programme, and two did not know of such a programme. Six of the workers did not know where to access it. None of the workers indicated that they could get access to this programme in town. • Department of Labour: Six of the workers were informed about the Department of Labour. Only one of them indicated that the Department paid them a visit on the farm. All the farmers were aware of the Department of Labour and one indicated that the Department paid him a visit the morning of the interview. • Police: The services of the police are generally known, and such services are available on the farms as well as the towns. One farmer claimed that the Police service is non-existent – they do not come when he needs them.
2. Utilisation of services on the farms
The following table illustrates the services, which are available on-site, i.e. on the farms.
Table 7 : Awareness of services on the farms
Farmer’s information about services Farm worker’s information about FARM on the farm services offered on the farm Farm A Primary Health Ambulance Ambulance Church School for Children Department of Labour Church
68 Farmer’s information about services Farm worker’s information about FARM on the farm services offered on the farm Police Farm B Department of Labour Ambulance Church Police Farm C Primary health Ambulance Ambulance Church Police Farm D Ambulance Ambulance School for children School for children Department of Labour Department of Labour Churches Church Police Police Farm E School for children Ambulance Department of Labour School for children Police Church Police Farm F Ambulance Ambulance School for children Social services Department of Labour School for children Church Churches Police Farm G Ambulance Ambulance Church Police Police
A few points are noteworthy: • There appear to be mobile clinic visits, but they only visit the farm schools and then the farmers in the area send their workers to the school to get help from the clinic. • It seems that in most cases the farmers, as well as the workers were quite aware of the new Labour Act and what their rights were. There were two places where neither farmer, nor worker had any contact with the Department of Labour. It is also interesting to note that the farmers were more aware of the Department of Labour visiting them on the farms than the farm workers. Only in one case did a farm worker indicated that the Department of Labour paid the farm a visit. • Only in one case, on farm D, were the farmer and the farm worker in agreement about the services that were rendered on that farm. This scenario is intriguing, because it seems that some of the workers keep the farmers in the dark of who is visiting on the farm and visa versa. • A few workers attend church services on the farm, it seems that the United Reformed Church has worked out a system where they have elders on the farms, and these elders are responsible to hold services on Sundays. The Minister of Religion only visits once a quarter.
3. The role of government
The farmers do not mind that officials of government departments visit the farms, but they must make appointments ahead of time, and must not incite the workers. The farmers suggested that the following services should be offered:
69 • Help the workers with ID’s, give necessary info to farmer to help worker with application (2). • Re-instate the mobile clinics (4) • Give information about AIDS prevention and family planning (4) • Life Skills • Prevention strategies for alcohol abuse (2) • Hospital • Medical services • Education • Housing subsidies32 (to build houses for workers on the farm) • Electricity subsidies (2) • Sanitation subsidies • Maintance of the roads • Pensions for farm workers • Subsidies for prevention of illegal weeds • Subsidies for vermin control • Subsidies for building of erosion walls
Five farmers indicated that government officials are welcome to visit the farm, while one were of the opinion that they should stay away because they will talk politics and incite the workers. One was also of the opinion that the government has nothing to do with what is happening on his farm. Some of the respondents said that they have no problem that officials visit the farm, but the officials must not “talk politics”.
4. The role of non-state organisations
Five farmers do not have any experience of NGO’s, while two of them are aware of an NGO helping farm workers. The organisation they knew was the Karoo Law Clinic33. The Law Clinic helps people when their human rights are being impaired. The farm workers made use of them when they were unfairly dismissed or abused on the farm. The Law Clinic then writes a letter to the farmer and conducts a mediation process to resolve the matter. At first, the farmers were not keen to do this, but many have realised that the Law Clinic can work to their advantage. They now make use of the Law Clinic they want to discontinue employment, and then the Law Clinic handles the whole process34. They also use the lawyers from the Law Clinic as judges and mediators in disciplinary hearings when dealing with the workers. Because of these
32 One farmer insisted that this was the responsibility of the government, he went so far as to say they must come and build the house on the farm according to their specifications and standards and then they must charge the worker rent for the house they have build. He didn’t see housing and the upgrading of the worker’s house as his responsibility at all. This same farmer were of the opinion that social services and primary health must only be availably in town because he didn’t believe that the government had the right to be on the farms. 33 See Appendix A&B 34 Farmer G explained the whole process as follows: “Ek maak van die Law Clinic gebruik as die werker wil bedank of as ek hom wil afdank, ek kap hulle met hulle eie mense. . .”
70 activities, the workers no longer trust the Clinic. The Clinic will soon have to close its doors because their donor funding has been discontinued.
5. The role of farmers’ organisations
Five of the farmers were of the opinion that the farmers association has no role to play in service delivery to the workers. One farmer even went so far as to say that the farmers association currently does not do a thing for the farmers, so how can it help the workers?
Two of the farmers believed that the farmers association had an educational function and must provide training or access to training for farm workers. The training they had in mind was literacy programmes, courses in fence making, sheep shearing, vermin control, setting of traps, and knowledge of plants in the veld.
One of the farmers was of the opinion that there should be a separate organisation for farm workers, that takes care of their needs, and that can communicate with them in their language and frame of reference (Farm G).
6. The role of churches
In general, the farmers and workers are well informed about the activities of churches. Some of the farmers recommended that churches have more services for farm workers, and provide more spiritual support. They must address the issue of alcohol abuse. The church must also be an instrument of development of farm workers, in terms of life skills. One of the farmers was of the opinion that the church should stay away from his farm and not visit the workers, because they incite and politicise the workers.
G. Residential options: Preferences of farmers and farm workers?
1. Current residential patterns
As the table below shows, three farmers preferred workers living on the farm, and three preferred workers living both on the farm and in town. One farmer said that he would prefer workers that live on the farm, but that the reality is that “we are working towards a position where farmers will not have workers living on the farm due to the new labour act, they won’t even have permanent workers, but will make use of contract workers”.
Three workers preferred to live on the farm, and four preferred to live in town.
Only in three cases were the farmers and the workers in agreement about the living arrangements of the workers. These are complex issues, as the table shows. In
71 almost all cases, interviewees had powerful reasons in favour of an option, but were also aware of counter-arguments or negative factors.
A general observation can be made: There is a general tension between the residential advantages derived from living on the farm (free housing, water and electricity) and the social services obtained in the towns (schools and clinics). This is a direct consequence of the abolition of the Rural Foundation, which had encouraged the provision of social services provided by the farmers.
Table 8: Residential preferences
Farm Farmer’s FARM Reasons worker’s Reasons preference preference Farm A Farm They are at hand when Town She is far away from his he needs them. family, and it is difficult to It is more cost effective get to town when you do not have any transport. Farm B Farm He wants one worker per Farm Everything is free, you Town farm to look after the must buy everything when livestock . you live in town. He make use of workers from town when he needs a big job done. Better to have the workers living in town, they can access all the services. Farm C Farm Makes use of only one Town He wants to be close to Town worker living on the his children and family. farm, and pays him a Wants his own house in day wage – do not have town. a contract with him35. He make use of workers from town when he needs a big job done. Farm D Farm He and the workers Farm She does not want to live know one another, they in town, because she are now for 3 does not know the town. generations together, In town life is difficult. they know one another’s On the farm you get weak and strong points everything free. Farm E Farm He runs a livestock farm Farm Likes living on the farm, and prefers that the everything is for free, i.e. workers live on the farm, housing, water, electricity, because they must be etc. on standby at all times. Farm F Farm They are available at all Town He is currently living on (Prefer) times. the farm, but would prefer Town If they are on the farm at living in town. (Reality) all times, he can build a He is afraid to be on the good relationship with farm when he gets old them. and loses his work, He is moving his because he does not workers to town due to know where to go then, tenure rights and the due to the fact that he has new labour act. no housing in town
35 The worker I a karretjie-mens and comes and goes a he pleases
72 Farm Farmer’s FARM Reasons worker’s Reasons preference preference Especially the Labour Act, because he does not want problem workers on his farm that are difficult to fire. Eventually he foresees that he will only work with contract labour. Farm G Farm He prefers working with Town Wants to live in town Town workers who lives in because he is paying for town, due to the new everything on the farm, Labour Act. Currently the electricity, the water, there are 2 workers the house and the food. living on the farm and 2 When some of his family workers living in town. wants to visit him, he first Eventually he only have to ask the farmer for wants one worker living permission, and then the on the farm and then he farmer makes it very wants to make use of unpleasant for them to contract workers to have a visit. come in and do the work when he needs them, and then he only have to pay a day wages and he do not need to have a contract with them.
In general, the reasons offered by farm workers why they prefer to live on the farms, are: • Free housing, water, electricity • Free transport • Living cost lower on the farm as in town • Free food, meat • Family lives on the farm • There is less “trouble” than in town • Access to a farm school for his children
These reasons indicate that there are still powerful “patronage” relationships between farmers and farm workers. Free housing, water, electricity, transport and food tend to suggest that farmers and workers do not regard each other as in a purely commercial relationship.
According to the farm workers, the disadvantages of living on the farm are: • Must pay for housing, water, electricity and food. • It is difficult for them to have their families visit them • They are far away from their children, who attend school in town • They have no security when they get old and have to retire – no house in town or place to go to. • They have difficulty getting access to services.
73 The majority of farmers tended to prefer their workers living on the farm, due to the following reasons: • Labour is nearby when needed • Workers are sometimes on duty over weekends. • At some stages during the season worker work overtime and they are available
Some of the farmers indicated that he would prefer that his workers live in town, and that they eventually will make use of contract workers in most cases and they offered the following reasons: • Fewer social problems • Problems over weekend – drinking • Workers visit one-another – he feels it is a safety risk • Workers fight with one another over weekends • It is easier to end the employment of a workers if he becomes a problem
H. Rights
With the exception of two farms (A & G) all the farmers were open to the idea that farm workers have the right to a cemetery on the farm. On Farm B the farmer indicated that a worker must have worked for a long time on the farm to have the right to be buried in the cemetery on the farm. It is also interesting to note that the workers and the farmers were in agreement about this right.
The farmer of Farm A didn’t cite a reason why he does not want the workers to be buried on the farm, while his worker was not sure whether it is allowed or not. He was aware of the fact that there is a cemetery on the farm but stated that is has not been used for a long time now.
The Farmer of Farm G were more outspoken about the issue. He was of the opinion that if he allows the workers to have a cemetery, that they could later come and claim the land. He also described a situation where one of his workers passed away who worked for him for 21 years and the worker’s wife wanted him to bury the worker on the farm. He refused to do it, but allowed them to have the services on the farm, but the body was buried in town.
I. Travel and transport arrangements: How strong are the links between farm and town?
1. Urban services
The farm workers visit town for several reasons: • Church attendance • Visiting family
74 • Visiting doctor and clinic • Shopping and services. • To take part in sport and attend sport meetings • To attend meetings (housing and school) • To access pensions and grants • To go to court • To go to the bank • To visit the Social worker
2. Transport facilities
The table below illustrates the types of transport available to farm workers:
Table 9: Transport services of farm workers
Type of transport Number of workers using this mode of transport Own car 1 Have access to the farmer’s bakkie 1 Travel with the farmer 5 Taxi 0 Walking 1 Hike 1 Bicycle 1 Horse/donkey 1 Bus 0
3. Commuting patterns
One worker who has his own car drives to town when he needs to go. The majority of the workers only go to town once a month with transport that the farmer provides (4 workers). Two workers go to town every fortnight. The worker that owns his own transport goes to town every weekend.
J. Farm workers’ livelihoods – Does the farm offer any options?
1. Cultivation
Six of the seven farm workers are allowed to cultivate vegetables on the farms in the survey. One worker indicated that the farmer said that they were allowed to cultivate vegetables, but he never put some land aside were they can do it (Farm A).
2. Stock ownership
The issue of stock ownership is potentially a very important one. It indicates whether a farmer regards the labour relationship as a “pure” labour relationship (the worker simply
75 sells his/her labour power), as opposed to a quasi-feudal relationship (the worker has certain production rights) or even a potential partnership (the worker and farmer may begin to “farm together”).
Table 10: Stock ownership and choice of residence
Farmer’s views Farm worker’s FARM of stock Reasons residential ownership preference Farm A Yes36 They are allowed to keep animals on the Town farm, and he set all the conditions put in their contract. Farm B No37 He pays them a good salary, more money Farm than what they would be able to make out of keeping animals. The farmer must rent land to keep animals; the workers should do the same thing. He does not want to be in a situation where the workers’ livestock increases all the time. In the future he wants to hire land in partnership with the workers and they can farm together there. Farm C No38 The workers will steal his livestock. Town They do not want to pay him to do the necessary immunisations for the animals. Farm D No He pays them a good salary, as well as Farm bonuses. If he has a good yield from the farm, the workers share in the profit in the form of a bonus. Farm E Yes It teaches the workers to take good care of Farm39 the animals. He also has a system in place where the farm workers share in the profits in terms of bonuses. Farm F Yes He allows the workers to keep livestock, but Town within bounds, and the day the current workforce leaves he will not allow it any more due to the new legislation. Farm G Yes Currently he allows them to keep horses and Town chickens. In the past, the workers were allowed to keep cattle as well, if a worker worked for him for a year he gave him a cow for the purpose to breed. Problems have arisen with the system, because when the worker leaves his employment he has nowhere to take his livestock and the farmer, has to buy it back from the worker.
From this table we can also deduce that some farmers are still open to the idea that workers have their own sheep in the farm, and that these animals graze with the
36 The worker indicated that they were not allowed to keep livestock; they were not even allowed to keep donkeys. 37 The worker indicated that they were allowed to have livestock, but the farmer said the workers are not allowed to keep animals. 38 The worker indicated that he owned 4 horses and 5 donkeys and that he had to sell it, he feels bad about it, because the animals were his means of transport. 39 The worker indicated that they are allowed to keep livestock, but that he currently does not do it.
76 farmers animals. There is, however, a movement in the farming community away from these practises to a point where the whole outfit is run as a business and that the worker is only an employee on the farm. From this point of view, the farmer works with a bonus incentive, where the worker is made responsible for a certain amount of animals and if he manage to raise them and the farmer gets a good price for them, the worker receives a bonus for his effort.
In four cases, the farmers indicated that they allow workers to own livestock on the farm, but if we look at the corresponding workers preference of residence, it is interesting to note that only one of these workers preferred living on the farm. This might indicate that the workers themselves are not farmers at heart and see their work on the farm as merely a job. It might also be that they came to realise that is more profitable to share in the profit via the bonus system, than to take the stress upon themselves to take care of their own animals.
3. Previous training
The following table indicates the types of training which farm workers have received in the past:
Table 11: Training experience and preferences
Number of farm Number of farm Subject workers who have workers who would received training like to receive training Welding 1 1 Animal diseases 3 Farm management 2 Driver’s licence 1 3 Repair of farm equipment and vehicles 2 Literacy 2 House cleaning 1 Cooking 1
It is interesting to note that two of the workers interview indicated that they have had no training at all, and that one worker (a woman) does not want any training as all (Farm B), the other worker learned to do the work on the job, but has no formal kind of training, and does not want any formal kind of training (farm G). The worker on farm B is female, while the worker on Farm G is male.
4. Training needs
The farmers indicated the training topics which they believe the farm workers will benefit from:
77 Table 12: Training preferred by farmers and workers
Subject Number of farmers who approve of training Animal diseases Farm B Farm D Welding Farm D How to take care of a lamb and how to help Farm B with the lambing process Farm management and entrepreneurship Farm A Farm B Farm D Farm E Farm F Farm G Driver’s licence Farm E Repair of farm vehicles and equipment Farm D (includes reparations of wind mills) Farm E Farm F Farm G Literacy Farm A Farm B Farm C Farm E Farm F Sheep shearing and wool classification Farm D Life skills (including parenting and honest Farm A work ethics) Farm B Fence Making Farm D Specialisation in different aspects of farm Farm B work (i.e. animals, crops, fence making, etc) Farm F Maintance of the veld Farm D Farm G Building Farm D Care of horses Farm D Needlework and crafts for the women Farm A
This table suggests a general desire, on the part of farmers, to have a better qualified and skilled workforce.
The following table shows the views on training on a farm-by-farm basis:
Table 13: Training requirements for farm workers
Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM Farmer’s views of desirable training training Farm A Literacy, Life Skills, needle work Learn to cook Farm B Literacy, Life Skills, How to take care of Licence a lamb and how to help with the lambing process, Specialisation in different aspects of farm work (i.e. animals, crops, fence making, sheering of sheep, etc) Farm C Literacy Licence Farm D Animal diseases, Welding, Repair of None farm vehicles and equipment
78 Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM Farmer’s views of desirable training training (includes reparations of wind mills), Sheep shearing and wool classification, Fence Making, Maintance of the veld, Building, Repairing and maintance of equipment used to ride a horse. Farm E Literacy, Repair of farm vehicles and Licence equipment (includes reparations of wind mills), Drivers licence Farm F Literacy None Farm G Reparation of wind mills, Vermin Licence later control, Literacy
The overriding impression is gained that there is a great desire, on the part of the farmers, to “up-skill” farm work. Furthermore, it appears that there have been virtually no training opportunities – possibly as a consequence of the abolition of the Rural Foundation, as well as the fact that the services provided by the Department of Labour have not been accessed. (The reasons for this remain unclear). It appears that there is a vast reservoir of desire for expertise, and yet no means have been found to build the expertise. Demands and needs remain unmet.
5. Training providers
Table 14: Views about training providers
Farmer’s views of desirable training Farm worker’s views on desirable FARM providers training providers Farm A The farmer via in-service learning. Wife of the farmer Farm B The farmer must hire people with the Farmer necessary skills to train the workers Farm C No indication Farmer Farm D Government must hire the farmers to Wife of the farmer do the training, the agricultural colleges. Farms schools must have a subject called practical agriculture where children can receive the necessary training to be skilled workers. Farm E The farmer Does not know Farm F Government Farmer Farm G Agricultural extension officers for No indication technical training Social workers to do lifeskills training The farmer
Several points should be noted from this table. Firstly, some of the farmers and farm workers believe that the farmers or farmers’ associations should provide training. It was described as a type of in-service training. This indicates a generally supportive attitude on the part of farmers. It is also necessary to note that some farmers were of the opinion that the government must make use of farmers on a contract basis to
79 provide training, because they believe that a farmer should know best what kind of training is needed on a specific farm.
Secondly, there was no explicit reference to the Department of Labour, which suggests that its training programmes are not being marketed effectively. Thirdly, the farmers generally indicated that it was the government’s task to provide the training, and in particular, the task of the Department of Agriculture.
One farmer indicated that the subjects that the children were taught at the farm schools should be extended to make provision for a subject called “practical agriculture” where children are taught the basic of sheep shearing, fence making, maintenance of wind millesand other farming equipment, etc. He was of the opinion that these kids that go to the farm schools usually returns to the farm to work as labourers and with this training they would at least been educated enough to be a good farm worker. It also helps to standardise the level of farm worker qualification.
The overall impression is one of enormous need and desire for training, but no coherent systems of training provision.
K. Support to emergent farmers
1. The ideal of farm ownership
Three of the farm workers indicated that they would like to have their own farming enterprises. However, they have been obstructed by the lack of capital to buy a farm and farming equipment, as well as a lack of experience and training to start such an enterprise.
Three of the workers do not want to own their own land, and one indicated that he has not thought about it.
Farmers suggested that the following agencies should assist emergent farmers: • Government in terms of financial assistance (Farm A, C, E , F) • Farmer in terms of advice, practical farming methods animal disease and guidance (Farm A. C, D, E) • Government should pay the farmers to assist emergent farmers (farm B) • AgriSA in terms of practical farming (Farm F) • Department of Agriculture (Farm G)
It is interesting to note that the farmers feel that there should be more of an openness and willingness on the side of the government to help emergent farmers succeed by making use of the expertise of the commercial farmers. They believe that they can make a difference and really play a meaningful role to help emergent farmers to
80 succeed in their ventures. They are more than willing to provide training, information and in some cases even infrastructure to help the emergent farmer to get a kick-start.
They are however, very critical about the people that the government is trying to develop as emergent farmers because they believe that these farmers get farms due to their political ties, and not necessarily due to the fact that they have some experience as farmers or farm workers. They believe the government needs to rethink its strategy on who should be emergent farmers, and how many hectares is a commercial farming unit, and that they should put into place a better evaluation process on who should become these emergent farmers.
The farmers also believe that there should be mentoring programmes in place were a commercial farmer acts as a mentor for an emergent farmer to help him with the day- to-day aspects of farming.
L. The “farming community” – a community only in name?
1. Developmental needs
For the most part the farm workers were happy about their situation and did not want anything more. One however did indicate that she was not paid according to the prescribed minimum wages, she was paid only R 500,00 per month, and the employer did not pay her in cash, but paid her wage over into a bank account. This means that she must go to town to draw her money from her account and she looses out on the deal because she has to pay banking fees as well.
Another worker complained that the sanitation situation on the farm really needs attention. I it was on this farm where the farmer indicated that there was proper sanitation for the workers, but where closer investigation revealed that the sanitation consisted of a pit toilet and that the pit were full. This meant that the workers have to use the veld. In terms of sanitation, it seems that there is a communication problem between the district municipality and the farmers about the subsidies that is available for sanitation, and the route the farmers have to follow to get the subsidies
2. Solidarity between farmers and farm workers
Five of the workers suggested that they would approach the farmer for help, especially for financial assistance, transport and the use of the telephone. Three workers indicated that they would ask the farmers wife for assistance, and she usually takes them to the doctor when they are ill. One of the workers said that they would also ask the church for help when some one passed away or if he needs financial assistance. Two workers indicated that they will ask the municipality for assistance, one was of the opinion the they must help him to get a house, and the other one were of the opinion
81 that they must help him to get his driver’s license. Only one indicated that he would ask the government for assistance with his children.
Two farmers describe their relationship with the workers as a labour relationship and cited the huge difference in culture as a reason why the do not see themselves and the workers as one community. One of the two went a step further and described his role as that of a guardian, and that he must see to it they do not fight over week-end, and that he must take them to the doctor when they are hurt or ill (farm G). Three of the farmers described the relationship as one of co-dependency, they need one another in terms of the farming activities and here they work and plan together as one team, but due to the cultural differences they are not one community. Only two of the farmers were of the opinion that they and the workers formed one community and they cited economic, safety and social reasons for their opinion.
According to four of the farmers, the farmer’s wife can play a role regarding teaching the farm workers literacy programmes, religious education, life skills, arts and craft skills, HIV/AIDS programmes and basic sanitation, and also setting up and running a crèche for the farm children. One farmer said that his wife is a professional person in her own right and that it is not her responsibility to development work on the farm with the workers and their families. Another farmer were of the opinion that it is not going to help to do development work, because the farm workers will never change. The third farmer indicated that he and his wife started with a development programme on the farm in 1985, but it didn’t work out because the workers didn’t show any interest in the programme, which lead him to the conclusion that his wife is not responsible for development work on the farm.
Table 15: Views regarding social relations, stock keeping and residential preferences
Farmer’s Farmer’s Farm Farmer’s views of views on views on workers FARM paternalistic relationship residence of stock view on farm workers keeping residence Farm A Depends on the kind of worker Farm Yes40 Town you have, but with the majority the relationship can be described as a labour-relationship Farm B Labour relationship moving to a Farm No Farm point of co-dependency in terms Town of the farming activities they are one team. Farm C Labour relationship Farm No Town Town Farm D One community, co-dependant Farm No Farm on one anther in terms of security and safety, economic well being, and on social level Farm E One Community, they take care Farm Yes Farm fhdlik
40 The worker indicated that they were not allowed to keep livestock; they were not even allowed to keep donkeys.
82 Farmer’s Farmer’s Farm Farmer’s views of views on views on workers FARM paternalistic relationship residence of stock view on farm workers keeping residence of one another, and are like one big family Farm F Co-dependency, on the one Farm (Prefer) Yes Town hand they are one community in Town terms of the farming activities, (Reality) but in terms of cultural activities they are separate Farm G Labour relationship Farm Yes Town Town
The following can be deduced from the table: • Three out of the four farmers, who see their relationship as a labour relationship, do not allow their workers to keep stock. The farmer on Farm A indicated he allows his worker to keep livestock, but the workers were of the opinion that they are not allowed to keep livestock, not even a donkey. Although the farmer of farm G current allows his workers to keep chickens and donkeys, he is also moving away from the point where he is going to allow them to keep stock, because he believes he is paying the workers enough in terms of the new labour laws. • In both the cases where the farmer have indicated that he believes that he and the workers are one community, the preference where the worker wants to live was on the farm. • In one of the two cases where the farmer have indicated that he believes that he and the workers are one community, the workers were allowed to keep their own stock, in the other case the workers receives bonuses up 20% of the profit made by the farmer for looking after, and taking care of the livestock when it gets to the market.
M. Making the break: The fate of ex-farm workers (all from Ex-farm workers questionnaire)41
1. What kinds of people?
Eight ex-farm workers were interviewed, eight were men.
The ages of the ex-farm workers were widely spread in the following categories: • 26-30 (2) • 36-40 (2) • 51-55 (1) • 56-60 (1) • 61-65 (2)
41 See Appendix C for a focus group interview with ex-farm workers, the karretjies mense.
83 The families of these farm workers consisted respectively out of 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 members. In some cases the families are lager than the families of the farm workers that were interviewed, but in other cases they were the same size, if not smaller. It is possible that ex-farm workers are caring for relatives and orphans.
The ex-farm workers’ level of literacy is low. Seven of them are illiterate, and one has passed Grade 4.
2. The farming heritage
The ex-farm workers had lengthy experience on the farms. Their experience ranges from two years to 30 years.
One person has been out of agriculture for only 1 month, two for tree years, one for 5 years, one for six years, one for 18 years and one have been so long out of a job that he does not know how long it has been that he is unemployed
When asked why they left farm work, the following reasons were noted: • Health reasons (3) • Farmer cut down on working force (3) • The pay was not enough • The work was too strenuous
3. Quality of life
All the ex-farm workers lives in shanties in town. On the farms, they all lived in brick houses.
One of the ex-workers’ sanitation situation got worse when he moved to town, he had access to a flush toilet on the farm and now has not access to any toilet. While living on the farm six of them didn’t have had access to any sanitation, moving to town meant that three of them have now have access to VIP toilets which is a marked improvement on the situation that they had on the farm where there were no sanitation. Four ex- farm workers sanitation stayed the same, three of them did not have had any sanitation on the farm and the same applies in town, while one had access to a VIP toilet, and he has the same situation in town.
The interviewees all make use of a community tap, which is between 40 m and 200 m away from their shanties. In contrast on the farm, five had taps in their gardens and two had access to communal taps, one ex-workers situation stayed the same with no access to water that is close to his house.
84 None of the interviewees have electricity in their homes. They also use wood fires and wood stoves for heating and one of them use a paraffin stove for food preparation. On the farms one of them did have electricity, and the others used to use fires, wood stoves, candles and oil lamps.
Six of the ex-farm workers have access to public phones, and the other two have no access to a phone. They have to walk to town to get to a public phone. When they were living on the farm, all of them were dependent on the farmer’s telephone.
Two of the interviewees have their own horses and horse carts, one owns a bycle and one has his own car. The other four interviewees make use of a taxi or they walk where they need to be.
The interviewees noted several advantages of living in town: • Have my own house • Have access to services • Is close to my family • Can attend social gatherings • Can go to church • Can go to meetings
However, there are also some disadvantages: • They have to pay for water and electricity • They can not sleep at night, due to the noise in the township • It is expensive to live in town • No food • No heating in the winter • No wood available • Have to beg for food • No camp where donkeys can stay • Can not keep livestock • There is no place to make a food garden
4. Changing livelihoods
Of the eight ex-farm workers, two are unemployed and two are self-employed, three do piece jobs and one is on pension.
Four of the interviewees want to work on a farm again, on the grounds that he would have fewer worries and that live is easier on the farm, because on the farm you get everything for free, including wood and soap. It is also less expensive to live on a farm. The other four that was interview did not want to work on a farm again because he was
85 to old to work and their health was not good enough to be farm workers. One were of these workers was of the opinion that the farmers are not treating the workers fairly and therefore he does not want to work on the farm.
Three of the interviewees have tried to farm on their own (with chickens, sheep, horses and donkeys). Six of the ex-workers want to start with their own farming activities. Three of the wants to farm with sheep, two with cattle, one with horses, one with goats and want wants to have a vegetable farm.
Difficulties with farming enterprises are the lack of capital, land is not available, there is no appropriate training and two of them were not informed about the land reform programme and the subsidies they can apply for.
It was also interesting to note that although the ex-workers are living in town, that the information on how to go about the get a farm, hasn’t been communicated to them.
5. Skills base
Table 16: Training experience and needs
Number of ex-farm workers Number of ex-farm workers Subject who would like to receive who received training training Welding 2 2 Animal diseases 7 1 Farm management 5 2 Farming methods 1 Driver’s licence 2 2 Repair of farm vehicles and 5 1 equipment Literacy 3 Sheep shearing 6 Construction and woodwork 1 2 Engineering 1
Four of the interviewees maintained that the government should provide training, two were of the opinion that is the duty of the farmers, one did not know who must do the training and one was of the opinion that his children must teach him.
These ex-farm workers have a much level and diversity of skills than the current farm workers.
86